N/A

Reciprocal iterability.

Okay, so that would be the difference. Yeah, that's exactly right. Here's an example. Tell me what you think of this. This example, people who are watching will be familiar with this story, but it's such a useful story. It doesn't matter. When... animal behavior started to study play. Right. They watched rats wrestle. Right. Okay.

Okay, so that would be the difference. Yeah, that's exactly right. Here's an example. Tell me what you think of this. This example, people who are watching will be familiar with this story, but it's such a useful story. It doesn't matter. When... animal behavior started to study play. Right. They watched rats wrestle. Right. Okay.

Okay, so that would be the difference. Yeah, that's exactly right. Here's an example. Tell me what you think of this. This example, people who are watching will be familiar with this story, but it's such a useful story. It doesn't matter. When... animal behavior started to study play. Right. They watched rats wrestle. Right. Okay.

Now, the assumption was that they noticed that if you take a juvenile rat, male, they like to wrestle. If the one juvenile was 10% bigger than the other, he could reliably win in a single bout.

Now, the assumption was that they noticed that if you take a juvenile rat, male, they like to wrestle. If the one juvenile was 10% bigger than the other, he could reliably win in a single bout.

Now, the assumption was that they noticed that if you take a juvenile rat, male, they like to wrestle. If the one juvenile was 10% bigger than the other, he could reliably win in a single bout.

Every time. He'd pin, and that was the marker.

Every time. He'd pin, and that was the marker.

Every time. He'd pin, and that was the marker.

Okay, so then the conclusion from that was that play was a form of dominance behavior, and what the victorious rat did was dominate, and that that was pleasurable because it was a victory. But then, but then, Panksepp did this. He thought, yeah, but rats live in a social environment, so they don't play once. They play repeatedly, which is like, he should have got a Nobel Prize for this.

Okay, so then the conclusion from that was that play was a form of dominance behavior, and what the victorious rat did was dominate, and that that was pleasurable because it was a victory. But then, but then, Panksepp did this. He thought, yeah, but rats live in a social environment, so they don't play once. They play repeatedly, which is like, he should have got a Nobel Prize for this.

Okay, so then the conclusion from that was that play was a form of dominance behavior, and what the victorious rat did was dominate, and that that was pleasurable because it was a victory. But then, but then, Panksepp did this. He thought, yeah, but rats live in a social environment, so they don't play once. They play repeatedly, which is like, he should have got a Nobel Prize for this.

It's such a brilliant insight. It's like, well, do the rules for iterable play, are they the same as the rules for one bout play? And the answer was no, because what Panksepp showed was that if you paired rats together repeatedly, The big rats that didn't let the little rats win 30% of the time didn't get invited to play. Right. Right.

It's such a brilliant insight. It's like, well, do the rules for iterable play, are they the same as the rules for one bout play? And the answer was no, because what Panksepp showed was that if you paired rats together repeatedly, The big rats that didn't let the little rats win 30% of the time didn't get invited to play. Right. Right.

It's such a brilliant insight. It's like, well, do the rules for iterable play, are they the same as the rules for one bout play? And the answer was no, because what Panksepp showed was that if you paired rats together repeatedly, The big rats that didn't let the little rats win 30% of the time didn't get invited to play. Right. Right.

So then you could imagine that maybe this is a technical way of thinking about enjoyment instead of pleasure, is that pleasure is a one-off and you could even exploit for pleasure. But if you want, instead, let's say you want to make an arrangement that's iterable, and if better, maybe, one that iterates and improves.

So then you could imagine that maybe this is a technical way of thinking about enjoyment instead of pleasure, is that pleasure is a one-off and you could even exploit for pleasure. But if you want, instead, let's say you want to make an arrangement that's iterable, and if better, maybe, one that iterates and improves.

So then you could imagine that maybe this is a technical way of thinking about enjoyment instead of pleasure, is that pleasure is a one-off and you could even exploit for pleasure. But if you want, instead, let's say you want to make an arrangement that's iterable, and if better, maybe, one that iterates and improves.

Right, because obviously that's better. If it's good once, then it should be good multiple times. And if it's good and could be made better, that would even be better.