Disbelief in science and governmental authority
If there was one matter upon which my mom and dad could agree in my childhood it was that science taught to me in school was not to be believed. Here, belief is defined as a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.
Likewise, science is defined as knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Noteworthy, I remain uncertain about my mom’s justification for her belief.
Regarding my dad, he described his Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) beliefs as principles which conflicted with science. Because of parental disbelief in science, I wasn’t permitted to learn about the hypothesis of humans having evolved from primates such as chimpanzees (“chimps”).
Humans were said to have been created in Jehovah’s image and having established dominion over other animals, because we were essentially superior to animals. Likewise, I was taught that animals had no spirits, so they were available to humans for either food or work.
Moreover, because humans were thought of as dominant over animals – of which we were supposedly unaffiliated from a classification standpoint, animals were incapable of thinking, believing, or feeling in a manner similar to humans. Mine was an interesting childhood, to say the least.
But wait, there’s more. I was further taught that Satan ruled the governments of the Earth. Thus, I was instructed to disbelieve in governmental authority. For instance, consider what I stated in a blogpost entitled Mark of the Beast:
I was informed that JW believed that the beast identified by the number 666 represented the world’s unified governments in opposition to Jehovah (Revelation 13:7). Expanding upon this matter, one JW resource states:
The Bible sometimes stresses a matter by stating it three times. (Revelation 4:8; 8:13) So the name 666 powerfully emphasizes that God views human political systems as gross failures. They have been unable to bring lasting peace and security—things that only God’s Kingdom will achieve.
To summarize, humans weren’t animals and animals were inferior to having been made in Jehovah’s image. Additionally, governments were evil and stood in defiance of a heavenly kingdom. These were the principles by which I was raised.
As I became an adult, I set aside my childhood teaching and came to appreciate the process of science. Also, rebelling against my upbringing, I subsequently sought and gained employment in and/or with a number of government agencies. Currently, I largely distrust governmental actions.
REBT
Many years since my youth, I now practice Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) which is a psychotherapeutic modality that is informed by science. For clarity, it may be usefully to briefly describe how this model functions.
REBT theory uses the ABC model to illustrate how when Activating events (“Actions”) occur and people maintain irrational Beliefs about the events, these unhelpful assumptions – and not the actual occurrences – are what create unpleasant cognitive, emotive, bodily sensation, and behavioral Consequences.
From a psychological standpoint, people disturb themselves using a Belief-Consequence (B-C) connection. Of course, this isn’t to suggest that in the context of the naturalistic or physical world there is no Action-Consequence (A-C) connection.
As an example of an A-C connection, if a chimp bites my finger (Action), I will likely experience pain (Consequence). Events occurring in the natural world indeed lead to outcomes.
Still, demonstrating a B-C connection, if a chimp bites my finger (Action) and I unhelpfully Believe, “Animals shouldn’t harm me,” this unproductive assumption will likely cause fear, anger, or sorrow (Consequence). Thus, I disturb myself from a psychological standpoint.
Noteworthy, there are four predominate irrational beliefs which people use: demandingness, awfulizing, low frustration tolerance, and global evaluations. Addressing these, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unhelpful assumptions in order to explore Effective new beliefs.
Furthermore, this helpful psychotherapeutic modality uses the technique of unconditional acceptance to relieve suffering. This is accomplished through use of unconditional self-acceptance , unconditional other-acceptance, and unconditional life-acceptance.
Game theory
According to one source, “Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents. It has applications in many fields of social science, used extensively in economics as well as in logic, systems science and computer science.”
Here, the term rational relates to that which is based on or in accordance with logic and reason. To illustrate a rational – albeit unfalsifiable – belief from my youth, consider the following syllogism:
Form –
If p, then q; p; therefore, q.
Example –
If Jehovah is superior to and unlike animals, and humans are created in Jehovah’s image, then humans aren’t like animals, as we’re superior to them.
Jehovah is superior to and unlike animals, and humans are created in Jehovah’s image.
Therefore, humans aren’t like animals, as we’re superior to them.
This is both a logical and reasonable proposition if one accepts the Judeo-Christian propositional arguments of the major and minor premises. Herein, I’ve no interest in disputing such premises which I’ve abandoned long since childhood.
What’s worth noting is that game theory functions on logical and reasonable premises and conclusions such as this are often accepted by many people. Interestingly, what one considers as “rational agents” is another matter altogether.
If I adhered to the foundational assumptions by which I was raised, animals are incapable of experiencing logic and reason. They were merely thought of to serve the purpose of food (e.g., bacon) or work (e.g., a horse that pulls a carriage).
Use of scientific knowledge to the contrary, especially if established by an evil government, was to be immediately rejected. This is one reason why some clients may not appreciate the practice of REBT, because a modality with an aim for rational living challenges predetermined beliefs.
Within game theory is consideration of a tit for tat strategy. Regarding this matter, one source states:
Tit-for-tat has been very successfully used as a strategy for the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. The strategy was first introduced by Anatol Rapoport in Robert Axelrod’s two tournaments, held around 1980. Notably, it was (on both occasions) both the simplest strategy and the most successful in direct competition.
As an example of tit for tat, when I was a child I was taught to look a man in the eye when firmly shaking his hand. This was because a handshake when meeting a man or when agreeing upon a matter served as a sign of initial cooperation. It expressed intent to behave well or appropriately.
To better understand the function of tit for tat, consider what neuroscientist and primatologist Robert Sapolsky has stated (also available in audio form):
Another domain: the defining feature of our humanness—the golden rule—do unto to others. Every society has some version of that or the negative version—do not do unto others as you would not have them do to you. This is just universal. This is the building blocks of human morality, sense of justice.
All sorts of work has been on seeing this—how you build whole moral systems out of reciprocity; this whole area of research called “game theory.” And game theorists have spent decades advising diplomats and war strategists and economists in all these sorts of game situations: When do you cooperate; when do you not; what are the strategic advantages of each approach?
So, if you study game theory—the posterchild—the fruit fly of research in that area is a game called “The Prisoner’s Dilemma.” Prisoner’s Dilemma: two people play it and they have some juncture where they have to decide do they cooperate with each other or do they defect. And the outcome is: if you both cooperate, you both get a reward; if you both defect—if you both stab each other in the back—you both get punished.
But if one of you cooperates and the other stabs him in the back, the cooperator gets screwed, loses a huge number of points, and the individual who got away with stabbing the other in the back gets the biggest reward of all. So, the game theory question becomes: When do you cooperate and when not?
And in this famous study in the 1970s, this economist named Robert Axelrod—what he did was he went to all his friends and explained how the Prisoner’s Dilemma worked and said, “So what would be your game strategy?” He went to theologians and prizefighters and Nobel Peace Prize winners and all of that.
He took everybody’s strategies, programmed them and put them in a gigantic computer and ran hundreds of thousands of generations of round-robin tournaments against each other. And one strategy kept winning and it was the simplest one in there. It was a tit-for-tat strategy. You start off by cooperating. If the other player cooperates, you keep cooperating.
If they stab you in the back one round, you stab them in the back the next round. If they have gone back to cooperating, then you go back to cooperating. Totally simple and the words that they used were not just sort of random, but they are very much thinking about the meaning here. Tit-for-tat drove all the other strategies into extinction.
It was the most optimal strategy. So, this was wonderful. The game theorists, economists, everyone is delighted. The animal behaviorists take one look at this and say, “Whoa! All sorts of social species cooperate. Do they use the same rule? Have they evolved this optimal strategy?”
And people went to look to see if their animals did tit-for-tat. And yes. First example: vampire bats—vampire bats, my God, drinking blood from other animals. When a vampire bat is drinking blood, all she is doing is getting food to feed her babies. Because she is not actually drinking it, she is storing the blood in her throat sack, and she flies back to her nest and disgorges the blood to feed her babies.
Now, vampire bats have an interesting social system, in that a whole bunch of females will have communal nests and they feed each other’s babies. They have a system of sustained reciprocity of helping each other out with feeding. Now, make the bats in this colony think that one of the females is cheating. She flies out of the colony, catch her in a net, get a hold of her and pump up her throat sack with air and push her back into the colony then.
Everybody is looking at her saying, “Oh my God! Look at the size of her throat sack! She has got so much blood and she is not feeding my baby!” And the next round, nobody feeds her babies.
Forgive the sizable amount of borrowed text. I’ve chosen to adequately echo what Sapolsky stated about the game theoretical component of tit for tat, because it’s worth noting that human beings may not be the sole source of rational agents within existence.
In my youth, I was taught otherwise. Given the function of science and rational disputes to the beliefs by which I was raised, I’ve changed my mind about how the world actually works. In specific, reciprocity appears to occur in nonhuman and human animals alike.
Thus, data referenced by Sapolsky implies that what I once thought was impossible may be possible. Animals apparently have the ability to demonstrate cognitive processes which result in a tit for tat strategy. Expanding on this matter, one source states:
We know that many animals can learn something through trial and error. Dogs, dolphins, birds and certainly chimpanzees can. Alfa doesn’t share? Next time Beta, when he is the captor, simply turns his back on him. The time after that Gamma does this, and then Delta. No angry barks, no signs of disapproval, just calm silence.
When Alfa does share, in subsequent rounds others share with him, too. But no pats on the back, and no joyful shrieks. Over time Alfa can learn in this world that it is better for him to share the loot, that sharing is the thing to do. This is trial-and-error learning. At some point he may hesitate a little, i.e. look puzzled, scratch his head, and thereby satisfy the onlooking philosopher. He has a belief, and there has been no communication (in [Donald] Davidson’s sense). Suppose this is so.
Thus suppose that our chimps can come to have beliefs through silent reciprocation by the others. It seems that this Tit-for-tat society is conceivably viable. See, the hunting goes well, the sharing too. Cooperation works fine, and they are all better off. Occasional mistakes are quickly corrected. Everything goes like clockwork.
It can also be argued that this Tit-for-tat society yields no less objective results. Because here too the apes converge on the idea that a captor should share with a fellow cooperator. The difference, of course, is that in the Tit-for-tat world each only relates this obligation to himself.
In moral society, in contrast, each finds that a captor should share with any cooperator. Thus, admittedly, both Tit-for-tat society and moral society could be objective but they are objective in different ways. It is only the second kind of objectivity that is moral, where also the not directly involved bystanders sound their disapproval.
Look at what happens if somebody makes a mistake, if somebody doesn’t share. In the Tit-for-tat world such an individual gets excluded during the following rounds because he has failed to share on previous occasions. Even if the supposed receiver were to get angry and sound his disapproval, the mistake would not count as a moral mistake. Why?
Because it is crucially indistinguishable from any ordinary quarrel, with two creatures trying to get hold of something, and the stronger, or the more persistent, one winning. A moral mistake is a kind of mistake that everybody, involved or not, participating or standing by, disapproves of. Hence, whatever the exact merits of Davidson’s social epistemology in general, it is surely right as it concerns the moral sphere. There this kind of convergence is a defining characteristic.
Again, forgive my sampling of a significant portion of text. It’s important to draw a distinction between a tit for tat society and one of moral functioning – not that these systems are mutually exclusive.
Also, there’s another point of distinction to be made. In blog entry entitled Morals and Ethics, I stated:
A moral is a person’s standard of behavior or belief concerning what is and isn’t acceptable for the individual and other people. As such, morals generally relate to what’s considered good, bad, right, wrong, or otherwise acceptable or unacceptable.
An ethic is a set of moral principles, especially [those] relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct. Whereas morals relate to what is thought of as pleasing or unpleasing behaviors and beliefs, ethics are essentially the rules one pledges to live by—based on morals.
With a tit for tat society in which even nonhuman animals apparently participate, behavior of other rational agents is monitored and reacted to accordingly. This suggests that there may be more to the matter than an A-C connection, as it’s not implausible to consider a B-C connection for nonhumans.
I can’t test this hypothesis, because I’m unaware of any valid mechanism that allows humans to communicate with animals as a means of determining whether or not nonhuman actors retain beliefs. For now, I find it difficult enough to assist humans with changing beliefs, so I’ll stay in my lane in this regard.
Ultimately, in a moral and ethical society that uses tit for tat strategies, I propose that the B-C connection is present when concluding that the behavior of others is worthy of correcting or punishing. This hypothesis is replicable and applies to game theory.
Tit for tat considerations
Recently, I posted a blog entry regarding what I perceive as tyrannical government persecution of Donald Trump in the form of lawfare—weaponization of the judicial system whereby the process of law serves as the punishment. Set aside your personal bias regarding this matter.
Think rationally. When a significant portion of the United States (U.S.) population maintains a similar perception (i.e., tyranny), how does a resulting tit for tat strategy unfold? What are the tit for tat considerations when people view government action as immoral and unethical?
Although I suspect that the highly politicized films Leave the World Behind and Civil War allude to what some people desire when tit for tat strategy results in A-C disorder, I’m not willing to advocate such conclusions herein. For context, when in the military I served in a country wherein the government essentially collapsed.
I don’t want that result for the U.S. Instead, I rationally consider the B-C interplay and how game theory may inform future events. Aside from all-out war within the U.S., how might a tit for tat strategy erode the civil function of our nation?
One obvious consideration arises from how nonhuman animals react when perceiving deception. They punish those who are thought of as disrupting the balance of reciprocity.
This could relate to Republican politicians punishing Democrat politicians for perceived wrongdoing. Because I hypothesize that the U.S. federal government largely serves as a performative uni-party that presents the appearance of division, I don’t suspect retaliatory behavior would occur on a national level.
Rather, I imagine state and local government actors would single out politicians for whom they may believe lawfare is supposedly beneficial. For instance, state X government employees would legally target politician Y so that state X would benefit from this tit for tat lawfare strategy.
Not only do I not desire to see my home country devolve into the chaos of armed conflict among its citizenry, I’ve no interest in experiencing the calamity of tit for tat gameplay impact this nation. A bunch of chimps playing chess with dire consequences isn’t what I’d like to witness.
Conclusion
I was raised under the teaching of disbelief in science and governmental authority. Although I understand plausible explanations as to why my parents were skeptical of these processes or institutions, I subsequently rejected the foundation by which I was raised.
One of the mechanisms I currently use to help me make sense of the world is REBT. Unlike the teaching from my youth, I now value rational living in which I carefully consider the utility of adaptive versus irrational beliefs.
As an example, I assess the usefulness of game theory and how it helps me to evaluate the logic and reason used by others, and which informs their behavior. In specific, I consider how a tit for tat strategy is apparently utilized by nonhuman animals and humans alike.
This mechanism is the simplest strategy, and the most successful in direct competition, to determine whether or not rational agents will work or coexist with one another in reciprocal balance. Understandably, when one agent is perceived as violating social norms, there may be unpleasant A-C outcomes which follow.
Herein, I’ve highlighted a foreseeable though truly unfortunate possible result of a tit for tat game being played within the U.S., as it relates to Trump. Given rational assessment of how tit for tat games unfold with animalistic behavior, I foresee unpleasant B-C outcomes for the future.
I truly hope I’m wrong regarding this prediction. In any case, unless people employ rational thinking, I suspect my hypothesis will be accepted. Again, I’m not expressing hope for this predictive outcome.
For those people who realize the limits of control and influence, as is the matter in my case, I invite you to keep in mind the B-C connection. No matter what detrimental game of chess is being played by chimps, you don’t have to actively participate in the chaos.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Ася Борсук. (2024, April 11). Photo of a serious angry chimpanzee playing chess [Image]. Playground. Retrieved from https://playground.com/post/photo-of-a-serious-angry-chimpanzee-playing-chess-he-holds--cluvt4f8p0eqks60106uhglw1
De Boer, J. (2011, June 17). Moral ape philosophy. Biology & Philosophy. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3215880/
Hollings, D. (2024, May 24). A scientific approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-scientific-approach-to-mental-health
Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/four-major-irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance
Hollings, D. (2024, May 18). Mark of the beast. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mark-of-the-beast
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles
Hollings, D. (2023, September 15). Psychotherapeutic modalities. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapeutic-modalities
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2024, May 15). Rational living. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-living
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2024, May 31). The 700 club. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-700-club
Hollings, D. (2022, November 9). The ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-abc-model
Hollings, D. (2023, September 6). The absence of suffering. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-absence-of-suffering
Hollings, D. (2022, December 23). The A-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-a-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-b-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2024, May 27). The process is the punishment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-process-is-the-punishment
Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science
Hollings, D. (2022, November 15). To don a hat. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-don-a-hat
Hollings, D. (2022, July 11). Unconditional acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, March 11). Unconditional life-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-life-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, February 25). Unconditional other-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-other-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, March 1). Unconditional self-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-self-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, October 22). Unfalsifiability. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unfalsifiability
Jehovah’s Witnesses. (n.d.). What does 666 mean? Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-does-666-mean/
Leakey Foundation, The. (2017, April 7). Episode 08: Being human with Robert Sapolsky [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/6uM0jF1LPjU?si=WesRlKr72jynm9RZ
Leakey Foundation, The. (n.d.). Origin stories episode 08: Being human with Robert Sapolsky. Retrieved from https://leakeyfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Leakey-Episode-08-Being-Human-with-Robert-Sapolsky-1.pdf
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Anatol Rapoport. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Rapoport
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Civil War (film). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_(film)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Donald Davidson (philosopher). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Davidson_(philosopher)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Donald Trump. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Extinction (psychology). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(psychology)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Game theory. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Leave the World Behind (film). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leave_the_World_Behind_(film)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Prisoner’s dilemma. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterated_prisoner%27s_dilemma
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Robert Axelrod. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Axelrod
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Robert Sapolsky. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Tit for tat. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
Comments