BloodFeud

ThoughtStorms Wiki

Question I asked here : http://brazil.tribe.net/thread/fac644a9-02a2-4417-9c9d-e3cd48e79999?tribeid=71694f02-b750-4401-b04a-3da28a83af74&r=10275

Disturbing story on the BBC a couple of days ago :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/fromourown_correspondent/4229136.stm

It seems large parts of the world still have notions of family honour so strong they can lead to vendettas / blood feuds and even killing their own family members.

To me, this sounds feudal. It's something our "modern" cultures have gone beyond. But many cultures haven't.

Some have interpreted the trouble between the western and islamic worlds as "blood feud" : ( ) http://www.techcentralstation.com/070805LH.html )

As Lee Harris says about blood feud (as opposed to war) it's oriented towards the past, not the future. A kind of punishment for past "insults" without strategic aim.

But its one strategic aim is to uphold some kind of reputation. Insults matter if

a) not punishing them is seen as some kind of tacit acceptance, and

b) accepting them diminishes your reputation with others.

So here's my question. We assume a ReputationEconomy / ReputationSociety is going to be more benign. But what's to stop it self-organizing into a violent one where honour is wealth and insult is theft, and violent feuding is the main "permanent "ethical" institution" for defending your "property"?

In fact, anyone who's read some pop game-theory about the prisoner's dilemma knows that "punishment" is a necessary component for a cooperative strategy to invade a non-cooperative one, or to sustain a non-cooperative society from invasion by defectors. So kneejerk retaliation is not wholly arbitrary.

However, it's also well noted that in noisy situations, such kneejerk retaliation isn't a particularly good strategy. You need more tolerance and forgiveness to overcome destructive vendettas.