[gt_]

>So if I'm understanding the article correctly, it says that tribalism occurs both naturally and in simulations.

My take was that the article does not quite make these claims, but uses the simulations to model implications of them.

>we should despise tribalism for some reason that is frankly not exactly clear

We should move beyond tribalism because of it's inherence of prejudice.

[PeterisP]

It does seem that the article makes these claims - it describes a particular experiment where they unexpectedly discovered that tribalism emerged as the dominant (most successful) strategy in a competitive game they simulated.

[duckingtest]

What these simulations show is that tribalism is a winning strategy. Which means not following it leads to death.

>We should move beyond tribalism because of it's inherence of prejudice.

Considering an inherent property of a winning strategy evil means your code is non-optimal and is inevitably going to disappear.

[gt_]

It is a 'winning strategy' only for the winners. We can just as well call it a 'losing strategy'. As the players become more intelligent, they are able to cooperate better and everyone wins, meaning cooperation is even 'more winning'. That is, unless your intentions here are something like eugenics.

[duckingtest]

It's only possible for everyone to win if basic resources are infinite. Tribalism is the only pareto optimal strategy for finite resources, especially land on Earth.