Jesus Changed Humanity by Cracking Game Theory

Human social systems adhere to Game Theory, his teachings allowed us to function at far higher levels of social complexity

Theology, evolutionary psychology and game theory, Jesus and the Soviet Union and the cold war. In light of this holiday season, let’s discuss what makes Jesus one of the most unique characters in human history. In delivering the will of God, Jesus solved game theory for tribal societies. He took us from tribes to nation-states with His teachings.

---

---

On Game Theory

Human social systems adhere to Game Theory. Game theory is the study of games and developing “winning” solutions to complex systems and problems. Game theory includes all complex environments where decisions must be made; from the scale of bacteria to stock-trading and international atomic warfare. An interesting fact that wasn’t really discovered until game theory became a primary discipline of mathematical study during the cold war. Optimizing results in different complex scenarios went from thought-experiments to very real actionable advice during the 50 year cold-war between the United States and the Soviet Union.

“Will they launch?” and “under what conditions will they launch?” and “under what conditions must we launch?” are questions that can be examined most accurately through the lens of game theory.

To take a look at how Jesus altered the equation of state that defined human interactions, we have to discuss the Prisoners Dilemma. Importantly, we are looking at Jesus, not “Abrahamic religions” in general. One could make reasonable arguments about the Buddha, but of the figures who made this critical insight into human nature, the story of Jesus shows it most succinctly; both in truth, and in it’s resultant misinterpretations.

---

The prisoners dilemma is one of the most basic problems in game theory. One version of the prisoners dilemma is: Prisoners A and B are both arrested. If neither talks, then they both get 1 year in prison. If one talks and the other refuses, the one who talks goes free, but the one who didn’t gets life in prison. If they both talk, they both serve 20 years… Neither prisoner can speak to the other or plan. So if you are one of the prisoners, what do you do?

The equilibrium point is for both prisoners to betray each other, but if they do, they both go to prison for 20 years. Alternatively, if they both keep their mouths shut, they only get 1 year in prison… but it’s better to get no years in prison, but if you think the other prisoner might talk, it’s better that you also talk so that you at least don’t get a life sentence.

There are many versions of the Prisoners Dilemma. It’s a though experiment about working with other individuals or groups while possessing limited information. Most versions of the prisoners dilemma have optimal solutions in the immediate near-term when it comes to large decisions.

We live in a society.

We’re basically playing the game all the time to different degrees. Attempting to optimize our results (for ourselves or our families) as a fact of daily life. As an example, we do this by working with our employer: they don’t know how hard we’re going to work tomorrow, and we don’t know when we’re going to get laid off or fired.

If I work hard and they fire me, I’ve wasted my time supporting the company. If I dick off at work and they don’t fire me, they’ve wasted their money. If I dick around at work and then they fire me… we’re both in the hole for less cost.

Nearly every aspect of social life is a complex version of the prisoners dilemma. We act with limited information in a highly complex social network all the time. Many organizations have different perceived equilibrium points based on available information. It might be fun to go spread lies on twitter about a co-worker, but it turns out that coworker has an uncle with a lot of money and a few powerhouse lawyers, and now he’s got 12 months to ready a lawsuit that’ll leave your name exposed and you penniless. Limited information meant that your calculated losses were not in agreement with the actual risks.

The perception that the likelihood of unemployment and layoff is high led to the fact that few people are willing to work for additional company status. You’ll probably be laid off anyway, and if not laid off, you won’t be promoted. So the equilibrium point has shifted from: stable/well-paid to unstable/easily-fired. One can argue about the drivers, but it’s necessary to recognize that the mathematics are true at the individual level, the tribal level, and the nation-state level.

---

There was an interesting analysis performed using the Prisoners Dilemma. The experiment was performed by a gentleman by the name of Dr. Axelrod.

A perfect supervillain name if I ever heard one

In the experiment, the prisoners dilemma was set up thusly:
Cooperate with the other user and you both get 3 points. Betray the other user and they get 0 points, and you get 5 points. Betray each other and you get 1 point each. A contest was created where algorithms would be submitted to play against each other 200 bouts each. Whichever user had the most points, aggregated between all matches, would “Win” the scenario.

Some very complex algorithms were created to try and out-smart the other players. The algorithms would try to test one another. They might try to deceive the other into playing too passively. There were a lot of complex theories of mind and bits of game theory that went into developing the best model. The algorithms that “won” the contest were surprisingly simple given the complexity of the game itself.

---

It turned out that the “winner” consistently across multiple experiments of different types was a half-assed hyper-simplistic algorithm called “tit-for-tat” which is, whatever the opponent did in the last round, this algorithm would do in the next. It would begin each match by attempting to cooperate, and then mimic the opposition for every cooperate/betray choice thereafter. No complex theory of mind or attempt to mathematically flank the opposition worked… instead it was a simple state of “I shall do unto you as you did unto me.” Aggregated across multiple matches, (and multiple forms of the contest) a tit-for-tat algorithm consistently outperformed.

That itself is an interesting discovery. The equivalent of “An Eye for an Eye”. A principle by which human societies have operated for thousands of years. Almost never in history would you see a clan or hierarchical system do something else. Turns out there’s a mathematical reason for that. An eye for an eye is what worked. From the results of these experiments, a relatively simple list was drawn up for “winning” algorithms in this type of game.

• Begin encounters friendly

• Retaliate when wronged

• Be clear and immediate in retaliation

• Do not hold a grudge

Of course, humans don’t compete as individuals, they’ve always competed as clans. Groups of genetically similar individuals strove to achieve for the unit what cannot be achieved alone. Up until around year 0, states grew out of familial hierarchies (the Roman Triumvirate as an example). For a family to achieve rulership they necessarily had to take a coercive hardline stance when it came to challenges to the hierarchy. Competition between clans were total and those that would not cooperate had to be eliminated as they posed a direct threat to not only the individual, but to the collective clan.

Within a clan you would see patriarchal figures forgive lesser flaws, but between clans that rarely occurred. It was a sign of weakness, and would indicate that others should exploit said weakness. The Hatfield’s and McCoy’s are an excellent modern example. Blood feuds were a common occurrence throughout human history and have only stagnated recently under the auspice of totalitarian surveillance.

---

What Jesus Changed

What’s interesting about all of these results is that the solutions are in the mathematics. Jesus took an idea that can be most accurately described mathematically and verbalized it in a way that even a few half-literate Jews could understand it 2000 years ago. That alone is an impressive feat.

It turns out that the real world is not a perfect environment.

A basic “tit for tat” strategy is suboptimal when there are accidents in the system. When there’s noise as they say in the video. Perhaps some one’s son died on a cooperative hunting expedition, and the result is now a clan-feud that will last generations. In those cases the clan-feuds will escalate until some one’s family has been driven out of the territory or killed.

One sees this often in the Pagan community. Almost aggressive by nature and incapable of cooperation outside of their clan. Which is an entirely functional strategy for survival, but which doesn’t work when competing with a larger institutionalized cooperative system. Pagan religions died out because they were mathematically inferior solutions to the problem of: how do we cooperate with those guys over there? Likewise pagan organizations find it nearly impossible to cooperate with each other on theological grounds. Mutually hostile gods.

Because a simple eye-for-an-eye morality system dictates that any harm must be repaid, these feuds only grow and escalate over time. What was found mathematically and algorithmically was that a “forgiving” tit-for-tat system would tend to win out in an environment where every one else is playing tit-for-tat. One tenth of the time, the “forgiving” version of the algorithm chooses cooperation for no rational reason. This allowed that version of the algorithm to break out of escalating ‘cycles of violence’. An updated form of the winning rules are:

• Begin encounters friendly

• Retaliate when wronged

• Be clear and immediate in retaliation

• Do not hold a grudge

• Occasionally be irrationally forgiving

That is what Jesus meant by “turn the other cheek” it doesn’t mean “be a pushover” it means “consider forgiving those who repent of their misdeeds.” A certain nuance lost on Pagan preachers dressed like the Crow. As the forgiving model was more effective, it grew. Jesus had altered the equation-of-state for human civilization by adding in just enough positive noise to the system to allow for large scale trust. The requisite expenditure on coercion to maintain the peace between competing clans decreased dramatically if competitors were all Christian.

Jesus said a lot of things about swords. Being willing to forgive the repentant is assumed also to include willingness to slay evil. The “always-turn-the-other-cheek” mentality of modern Christianity is a consequence of state managerialism taking the reigns of culture and turning clan and family into “go tell daddy government some one made you sad.”

Many Modern Christian interpretations are weak and easy to take advantage of. Modern individualist-atheism is even weaker from a game-theory perspective without even a theological order for holding ones own clan to moral standards. It requires state coercion to maintain social cohesion. The edgy pagan death-cults aren’t going to make headway because they’re dangerous to work with from outside.

The modern Dissident Right is cultivating a new culture that’s more functional than anything we’ve had in over a century. I suspect that the mathematics (or rather the Truth of God as they’re synonymous here) will favor a more traditionally forgiving form of Christianity. The kind where it’s understood that evil must be eliminated while misdeed can be forgiven.

For those confused about my choice to equate mathematics and theology, see my post on a logical justification for God as shown through mathematics.

---

The sociology of God and pagan pantheons

Nearly every pantheon in every pagan or polytheistic religion displays a lot of intergenerational violence. In particular those of Western, Persian, Slavic and Nordic descent. The themes are culturally reflective. The way in which the average child came of age can be understood through the lens of their theology. From a psycho-social standpoint, most religions reflect familial dynamics.

It was seen as normal for the father to be an unforgiving tyrant in the family and it was seen as normal that the son would one day grow to supplant him. Zeus killed his father Chronos. Fáfnir killed his father Hreiðmarr to steal his own fathers treasures. In Hindu mythology, Indra killed his father Vritra. You can see a theme here. This was likely partially a metaphor for the passage of time as understood through conquest. The Abrahamic faith of Judaism was little better, basically a 4000 year epic of the Jews not technically disobeying the commandments of God and God not technically smiting them for it.

Jesus introduced something new. Just as in older religions, the Father represents the creator figure who stands on high and can dole out judgement with impunity. (I’ll let the Christian-autists argue about the nature of the trinity in the comments). Unlike the father figures of nearly every other major religion, the Christian Father offered unconditional love and forgiveness for the transgressions of his children.

Christianity is the story of the son of God traveling into the world as a redeemer rather than a conqueror. The son provides the message of his Father, and the Father forgives those willing to repent of their errors and hear the message. It is a fundamental change of alignment from what existed before. It is directly opposed by the more classical sociological structures in that it allows something that few other religions do: a second chance.

Christianity changes many things. One of the most interesting is how it encourages you to view death. One can regard Death as fear, as a hound nipping ever at your heels until you finally fall behind, an eternal horror. Or one can see Death as an old friend that remained by your side until one day it taps you on the shoulder and says “well, you did what you could, it’s time to go.”

The capacity to forgive transgressors without violence and expect forgiveness in return fundamentally altered human cultures. Those regions where Christianity predominated became much more capable of mass-organization basically overnight. In a few hundred years, Christianity had become the dominant regional religion. Islam used a similar model and saw a similar explosive growth in cultural complexity.

A degree of capacity-for-cooperation existed now between even hostile tribes as long as both were Christian. Medieval combat saw the knights not killed out of spite, but captured, treated to dinner and then ransomed back to their homes. Christianity was a method of mitigating risk to combatants, reducing the need for hierarchical coercion, and maintaining a cohesive cultural unit. This is why Christianity succeeded where pagan religions failed: it permitted cooperation between competing clans.

Never have I seen some one so head-strong and foolish as a righteous pagan talking about how we should just kill all our enemies. While that sounds good (and killing is not murder in the eyes of God) the capacity of the pagan to separate potential-friend from enemy remains abysmal.

Christianity helps distinguish ‘our people’ from ‘foreign people’ and ‘the god-fearing’ from the ‘heathen’ while remaining aware that the totalitarian application of violence is rarely required to settle disputes between mutual Christian factions… but nearly universally required when settling disputes against those who are heathens… or between tribes that are both heathen.

---

In a Modern Light

Christianity altered the culture from a ‘tit-for-tat’ social system to a ‘forgiving tit-for-tat’ social system in an environment where nearly every one was playing ‘tit-for-tat’. What strategies work best, however, depend on how every one else is playing. As the method of social function shifted, so too did the equilibria point. For a time this created “high trust” societies. Social systems that became more and more forgiving over time. A moral form of the 'Hegelian March of Progress’. That is until a group of ideological worms figured out that they didn’t have to play tit-for-tat any more.

Woke progressivism, and a number of other ideological factions discovered that they could choose ‘betrayal’ every time and nearly every one would put up with it. They have no concept of forgiveness or second chances because they thoughtlessly enjoy the pain of others. They feel no remorse because they have no moral foundation beyond narcissism. Woke progressives are violent bullies who get off on hurting innocent people. By wrapping themselves in the shroud of a victim, liars could worm their way into public institutions and organizations. This happened because things worked so well under a Christian doctrine for so long, that we forgot the other half. The idea that you were only supposed to be forgiving to the repentant.

That is why there’s been such a growth of paganism in the West. It’s reactionary to the sniveling social parasites that have been joyfully harassing and coercing innocent people and getting away with it. The logic goes “if playing the forgiving game led to this, then let’s stop forgiving anything ever again.” Fair point in the short term. In the long-term, we’re going to need to retain social function for a larger cultural body than a clans a few tens of thousands. Pagan organizations will find initial success in combating the disgusting moral-malformations that have seized our institutions, but will have difficulty operating those institutions.

A form of retro-Christianity is probably going to become dominant in the United States over the next 30 years. One thing it will have is a public mandate to root out and demand penance from the Woke pedophiles and public enemies. In Europe a form of Islam is as likely to become dominant as not, and it will express a similar vehement disapproval of modern woke leftism. Like in Dearborn Michigan, Islam will make temporary alliances with the Slaaneshi monstrosities before abandoning them to their fate.

Jesus gave us a better way to play the cultural game 2000 years ago. While a few less-forgiving readings of scripture are required in the modern era, it’s still the best playbook there is. We heard the word 2000 years ago, and in the last century we’ve mathematically proved it. If you can’t find the Will of God in the mathematics, you’re no looking in the right way.

Deus Vult.

---