[travisgriggs]

To start with, I really enjoyed Veritaseum’s recent take on the “Prisoners Dillema” and Game Theory (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM). 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.

[WhitneyLand]

>>relationships have a bargaining element?

Yes, generally understood to be true in psychology.

>>if we forgive, we fear it devalues or weakens our bargaining power

I can’t argue your personal experience, but I don’t think this one is major theory or something generally accepted to be true about forgiveness.

>>Why else are we so tempted in a debate to rejoin with “yeah, well you do <wrong thing> too

Because “whataboutism” is just a logical fallacy that people use as a common defensive tactic, but it’s not inherent to forgiveness.

[catskul2]

I've always thought describing "whataboutism" as a logical fallacy as misunderstanding the broader picture.

I don't think that most people who use "whataboutism" are actually arguing that the "whatabout" logically negates the adversary, but rather politically negates the adversary. I.e. "you might be right about my behavior, but why should I pay the cost of changing if you don't yourself change".

If it's approached as a political argument rather than a logical one, or rather that the politics are acknowledged, then it's easier to get around it and return to the logic part: e.g. "You're right that there are things I do that might need to change, and I'm willing to talk about that. I'd like to address this first."

There are also reasons to address both things at once as admitting fault early results in ceding bargaining power to the adversary when there's not trust that they'll be as honest in their own assessment once you've been honest with your own.