The tribe which has the rule “For the good of the tribe, do not cheat to seize power even when it would provide a net benefit to the tribe.” performs better than the tribe which has the rule “Cheat to seize power when it is in the benefit of the tribe.”
One reason for this is that if a significant proportion of the tribe agrees on what the best course of action is, no usurper is needed- and if only a tiny fraction can agree on what is best, the remainder cannot tell if they are acting in good faith or not. A tribe which trusts everyone who says ‘trust me’ is betrayed much more than a tribe which trusts everyone in a manner consistent what the evidence suggests their trustworthiness is.
The tribe which has the rule “For the good of the tribe, do not cheat to seize power even when it would provide a net benefit to the tribe.” performs better than the tribe which has the rule “Cheat to seize power when it is in the benefit of the tribe.”
Of course, cheating is already breaking the rules!
The tribe which has the rule “For the good of the tribe, do not cheat to seize power even when it would provide a net benefit to the tribe.” performs better than the tribe which has the rule “Cheat to seize power when it is in the benefit of the tribe.”
One reason for this is that if a significant proportion of the tribe agrees on what the best course of action is, no usurper is needed- and if only a tiny fraction can agree on what is best, the remainder cannot tell if they are acting in good faith or not. A tribe which trusts everyone who says ‘trust me’ is betrayed much more than a tribe which trusts everyone in a manner consistent what the evidence suggests their trustworthiness is.
Of course, cheating is already breaking the rules!
Right- but in some cases breaking the rules is sanctioned by the rules.