Tit-for-Tat versus Tat-for-Tat

How to think about hitting back

You get punched in the face. It stuns you. You didn’t see it coming. With every millisecond that passes, your body’s natural defense mechanisms provide you with counterpunch calculations. You pivot, look and confirm no weapons, step to close distance to target, and hit back with all you’ve got.

***

Fist for fist. Blow for blow. Fire with fire. There are so many expressions for striking back they’ve become cliche. Cliche indicates pattern, and patterns can instruct.

Why do we so-often select the same strike in response to an adversary? Not just individuals, but countries too. I live and work in national security, the land of Mutually Assured Destruction and escalation ladders, which are essentially a series of ever-increasing reciprocal strikes.

If pushed, my gut tells me we do this out of some deeply-embedded instinct to copy others. A memetic impulse, mirror-imaging, a bigger version of the doctor hitting a knee to provoke reaction.

I doubt there’s much thought to it at all. Some might argue that a Tat-for-Tat response communicates resolve and a willingness to hit back. But if that’s all it communicates, and you’re willing to hit back in the first place and risk a response—then why not select a strike more likely to get you something in addition to a mere signal?