Once you understand game theory, you understand the world.

The way I’ve always imagined crown shyness (from a total less-than-layman perspective where I’ve only casually read about the topic) is from a game theory/selfish gene perspective. Trees of the same species will share a lot of the same genes, and genes that code for non-shyness will grow to the detriment of the trees around them. Trees which critically are very likely to share a lot of the same genes. So that non-shyness gene will lose out in the long run against genes that code for shyness. It’s similar to the prisoner’s dilemma, with shyness being “cooperate” and non-shyness being “defect”. Groups of trees with cooperative strategies would do better collectively (and win out), even if a non-cooperative individual can beat a cooperative individual every time. Veritasium had a great video on this very topic today, in fact: this video

After watching this video, Veratasium's video brings me some modicum of hope at least: "What The Prisoner's Dilemma Reveals About Life, The Universe, and Everything" this video Practice spotting those cognitive biases. Your Wikipedia rabbit hole may start here: link

According to game theory, you should have empathy but not too much. Its such a powerful theoretical finding for every aspect of life. I found it best explained in the Veritasium video on game theory [1] [1]: this video

To start with, I really enjoyed Veritaseum’s recent take on the “Prisoners Dillema” and Game Theory ( this video ). It seems appropriate to mention since it circles around this same “dillema” and even places a numerical value on the value of forgiving in game theory simulations. The historical part and layman’s reduction is good to. I think THIS article undersells the “Hold a Grudge” payoff: > David feels justified but might damage the relationship and stop Samantha from learning from her mistake. Most relationships have an ongoing bargaining element to them. Exchange of services, tit for tat, quid pro quo, pay each others backs, etc. Even when we pretend they don’t, or obscure them by wrapping higher level words around them. What makes forgiving hard, is that when we feel wronged, we feel it gives us a better bargaining position go forward. If we forgive, we fear it devalues or weakens our bargaining power going forward. Why else are we so tempted in a debate to rejoin with “yeah, well you do <fill in the blank wrong thing> too!” To clarify, I AM a big fan and proponent of forgiveness. I aspire to be better at. But I think this article has missed a key part of the dillema, by not better portraying the real allure of not forgiving.

Tik for tat exists, but only when you can have a clear communication about it. Veritasium did a piece about it for explaining for layman. this video

Vertasium has a great video talking how Tit-for-Tat (Copycat) wins as a strategy (and how there was a math competition that proved it as well) this video --- This seems like a nice rebuild of the math competition performed years ago (as talked about in the video link above). Direct link to that part of the video: this video

You don't have to go as far as to straight up "trust by default". You can instead "give a chance" by default, which is the middle path. Actually Veritasium has a great video about this. It's proven as the most effective strategy in monte carlo simulation. EDIT: This one: this video

> it's no longer a matter of choice, you have to do it too You know, there are plenty of examples where people in positions of power choose different paths of escalation. I doesn't always need to be liner tit for tat. Some times you need to step back and look at the larger picture and decide of the escalation is worth the risk for all of humanity. There is a video about game theory [0] that describes this problem very clearly. You have better outcomes when you make decisions outside the direct course of escalation. Please don't talk in absolutes about these things, you have an opinion. I accept that, but its not as black and white as you think [0]: this video