Another Test for The General Love System in the Society

Restoring the givers and NOT the takers is the most effective strategy, among all in the society as it will encourage the number of love interactions, according to the definition of the general love framework. This may be supplemented with limited punishments for the takers once they surpass a certain thresholds with almost no contribution to the others. But these punishments only account for less than 10% of the overall restoration resources for the givers and less than 5 percent of the number of restorations. Note punishment alone, even three times more frequent to the takers with no restoration to the givers would result in a lower mean and larger disparity in the population.So it seems that love really counts! The simulation is over-simplied as it only includes one dimension and also assumes everyone could contribute equally. In reality, it may be practical to enforce restoration of givers such as ME according to peers, e.g. similar backgrounds and experiences to prevent excessive exploitation or slavery! What if for every excessive giver, instead of award the restoration to the giver, the restoration was given to all the others in the population. This would result in very frequent restorations that dilute the value to only 3 percent after 1000 interactions for each individual. Even though the overall mean is not too bad which results in almost no disparity, almost everyone in the population (99.6%), including the givers would have less value compared with before. This sacrificing strategy is awarding taking and not giving behaviors so this is not a good strategy. Overtime, good givers will be sacrificed and only takers remain with nobody to take. Note you could never judge a person by his/her current value. You will not be able to judge by weighing his/her values before and after each round of interactions as all types are overlapping. The only thing valid is the ability of a person to increase other’s values regardless of what the other may claim as well as his/her own gains or losses. For example, a taker would blame a giver to say he/she is a loser and take all the credit to herself/himself but the taker is gaining values while the giver is actually losing upon each interaction. So the taker is lying and the giver should be restored if the giver suffers tremendously from takers around her/him, instead of rewarding the takers or everyone except the giver herself/himself as he/she had been maliciously labeled as a taker. Nobody I know have given as much as me and my core family, even though you had all claimed me as a loser and you as a winner! That by itself is a testimony that I am a TRUE GIVER. If the world still want to prove you are way better than me and pay me nothing except rewarding all my losses to everyone else! Even if you have given a billion to others and nothing to me everytime I request(ed) payment and restoration, you were/are leading the world to hell and will never be saved! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!