game-theory-tit-for-tat skill

---
name: game-theory-tit-for-tat
description:
  Apply Tit for Tat strategy for negotiations, relationships, and repeated
  interactions. Use when navigating workplace dynamics, building partnerships,
  handling conflicts, or designing systems with reciprocal interactions.
---

# Tit for Tat - Game Theory Strategy

Tit for Tat (TFT) is a strategy from game theory for repeated interactions. It
famously won Robert Axelrod's computer tournaments by being simple yet
remarkably effective. The strategy succeeds not by "beating" others, but by
achieving the best possible mutual outcome.

## When to Use This Skill

- Navigating workplace relationships and conflicts
- Building long-term business partnerships
- Handling negotiations with repeat interactions
- Designing reputation and trust systems
- Managing team dynamics
- Resolving ongoing disputes

## The Strategy

```
Tit for Tat Rules:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                                                                  │
│   RULE 1: COOPERATE first                                       │
│           Start every new relationship with trust               │
│                                                                  │
│   RULE 2: MIRROR their last move                                │
│           If they cooperated → Cooperate                        │
│           If they defected  → Defect                            │
│                                                                  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

## The Four Qualities

```
Why TFT Wins:

┌──────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│   NICE       │ Never defects first                               │
│              │ Starts with cooperation and good faith            │
├──────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│   RETALIATORY│ Immediately punishes defection                    │
│              │ Prevents exploitation                             │
├──────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│   FORGIVING  │ Returns to cooperation after one punishment       │
│              │ Enables recovery of relationships                 │
├──────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│   CLEAR      │ Pattern is easy to recognize                      │
│              │ Opponents learn cooperation is rewarded           │
└──────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

## Understanding the Payoff Matrix

```
Prisoner's Dilemma Payoffs:

                    Partner's Choice
                    ┌─────────────┬─────────────┐
                    │  COOPERATE  │   DEFECT    │
         ┌──────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┤
    Your │COOPERATE │  Win-Win    │  You Lose   │
   Choice│          │  (3, 3)     │  (0, 5)     │
         ├──────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┤
         │ DEFECT   │  You Win    │  Lose-Lose  │
         │          │  (5, 0)     │  (1, 1)     │
         └──────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┘

In single games: Defection seems better (5 > 3)
In repeated games: Mutual cooperation wins (3+3+3... > 5+1+1...)
```

## Application Framework

### Step 1: Assess the Interaction Type

```
Is TFT appropriate?

Repeated interaction?
├── YES → TFT applies
└── NO  → One-shot game (different strategy needed)

Shadow of the future?
├── Will interact again → TFT works well
└── No future interaction → Less effective

Can they observe your response?
├── YES → TFT signals clearly
└── NO  → Communication needed
```

### Step 2: Determine Your Starting Position

```
First Move Decision:

New relationship?
└── COOPERATE (be nice)

Existing relationship?
├── Their last action was cooperative → COOPERATE
└── Their last action was defection → DEFECT (once)

After punishment?
└── If they cooperate again → COOPERATE (forgive)
```

### Step 3: Execute and Communicate

| Situation        | Action    | Communication                           |
| ---------------- | --------- | --------------------------------------- |
| New relationship | Cooperate | "I'm starting with trust"               |
| They cooperated  | Cooperate | Reinforce positive cycle                |
| They defected    | Defect    | "This response is to [specific action]" |
| After punishment | Cooperate | "Let's move forward"                    |

## Output Template

After analyzing a situation, document as:

```markdown
## Tit for Tat Analysis

**Situation:** [Description]

**Date:** [Date]

### Relationship Assessment

| Factor                | Status                                       |
| --------------------- | -------------------------------------------- |
| Repeated interaction? | Yes/No                                       |
| History               | [Cooperative/Mixed/Adversarial]              |
| Their last move       | [Cooperate/Defect]                           |
| Current state         | [In good standing/Punishment phase/Recovery] |

### Recommended Action

**Action:** [Cooperate/Defect]

**Rationale:** [Based on which TFT principle]

### Communication Plan

**If Cooperating:**

- [What to say/do]
- [How to reinforce positive dynamic]

**If Defecting (Retaliating):**

- [Specific response to their defection]
- [Clear signal that cooperation will resume if they cooperate]
- [Avoid over-punishment]

### Exit Conditions

| If They...            | Then I...                    |
| --------------------- | ---------------------------- |
| Return to cooperation | Immediately forgive          |
| Continue defecting    | Continue matching            |
| Escalate              | [Boundary for disengagement] |
```

## Real-World Applications

### Workplace Relationships

```
Scenario: Coworker missed deadline affecting your work

TFT Response:

Be Nice (initially):
├── Assume competence and good faith
├── Give benefit of doubt first time
└── Don't preemptively retaliate

Be Retaliatory (this incident):
├── Address directly: "The report wasn't sent as agreed"
├── Ask what happened
├── Set clear expectation for next time
└── Don't let it slide (prevents exploitation)

Be Forgiving (after):
├── Once addressed and they commit to improve
├── Drop the issue completely
├── Don't bring it up in future interactions
└── Don't hold a grudge

Be Clear:
├── Your response should be predictable
├── They should know: cooperate = good, defect = consequences
└── Make pattern obvious so they can adjust
```

### Business Negotiations

```
Scenario: Partnership negotiation

TFT Approach:

Opening (Nice):
├── Make first good-faith offer or concession
├── Signal you want win-win outcome
└── Don't start with extreme position

Response to Their Move:

If they make reasonable offer:
└── Match with reasonable counter

If they lowball aggressively:
├── Match their firmness
├── Don't concede further
└── Show you won't be exploited

Recovery Path:
├── Moment they move to reasonable position
├── You move to reasonable position too
└── Signal: cooperation = path to deal
```

### Personal Relationships

```
Scenario: Friend cancelled plans last minute

TFT Application:

Nice (default):
├── Assume good reason
├── Don't catastrophize
└── Be understanding this time

Retaliatory (if pattern emerges):
├── Set boundary: "When plans change last minute, it affects me"
├── Communicate clearly
├── Reduce investment in future plans with them

Forgiving (if they adjust):
├── When they make effort to be reliable
├── Immediately return to full engagement
├── Don't "echo" past cancellations

Handle Noise:
├── Clarify intent before retaliating
├── "When you cancelled, was something wrong?"
├── Miscommunication shouldn't start death spiral
```

## Known Weaknesses

### 1. Noise Problem

```
The Death Spiral:

Misunderstanding occurs:
├── You cooperated, they perceived defection
├── They defect in response
├── You defect in response
├── Alternating defections continue
└── Both lose, neither recovers

Solution: Generous Tit for Tat
├── Occasionally forgive defection (10% random)
├── Breaks accidental cycles
├── Better in "noisy" environments
└── Communicate to clarify perceived defections
```

### 2. Credibility Problem

```
The Punishment Paradox:

After they defect:
├── TFT says: retaliate
├── But: retaliation is costly to you too
├── Rational choice: forgive and return to cooperation
└── If they know this, threat isn't credible

Solution: Commit to retaliation
├── Make punishment automatic
├── Reputation for following through
├── Short-term cost for long-term credibility
```

## Variants

| Variant              | Modification                      | Best For             |
| -------------------- | --------------------------------- | -------------------- |
| **Generous TFT**     | Randomly forgive some defections  | Noisy environments   |
| **Tit for Two Tats** | Only retaliate after 2 defections | Cautious approach    |
| **Suspicious TFT**   | Start with defection              | Hostile environments |
| **Gradual TFT**      | Escalating punishment             | Repeat offenders     |

## Integration with Other Methods

| Method                  | Combined Use                |
| ----------------------- | --------------------------- |
| **Five Whys**           | Why did they defect?        |
| **Loss Aversion**       | Defection = loss framing    |
| **Trust Psychology**    | TFT builds/maintains trust  |
| **Negotiation**         | TFT as negotiation backbone |
| **Conflict Resolution** | Framework for de-escalation |

## Quick Reference

```
TIT FOR TAT DECISION TREE

New interaction?
└── COOPERATE (be nice)

They just cooperated?
└── COOPERATE (reward)

They just defected?
├── DEFECT once (retaliate)
└── Then if they cooperate → COOPERATE (forgive)

Unclear if defection was intentional?
├── COMMUNICATE first
└── "Was that intentional?" before retaliating

Stuck in defection cycle?
├── Unilaterally cooperate once
├── See if they break cycle
└── If not, reassess relationship
```

## Questions for Situational Analysis

When applying TFT, consider:

1. **What's your primary goal?**
   - Repair relationship (break death spiral)
   - Build new partnership
   - Navigate competitive environment

2. **How noisy is your environment?**
   - High noise → Use Generous TFT
   - Low noise → Standard TFT works

3. **Individual or group?**
   - 1:1 → TFT works well
   - Group → More complex dynamics

## Resources

- [The Evolution of Cooperation - Robert Axelrod](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/366821.The_Evolution_of_Cooperation)
- [Veritasium: The Prisoner's Dilemma](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM)
- [Game Theory 101](https://www.gametheory101.com/)
- [Behavioral Game Theory - Colin Camerer](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/469689.Behavioral_Game_Theory)