One of the arguments of "Hive" is that research shows that in a prisoner's dilemna game which extends over multiple sessions, the best strategy is "tit for tat" but not always. Straight "tit for tat" can lock the players into a vicious cycle of retaliation, often familiar from Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, etc., while the occasional deviation can transform the game into one of cooperation, which is win-win for both parties. The book arguments that people with higher IQ's take a longer perspective, so are thus more likely to initiate cooperation, leading to group evolution.
It strikes me that "slippery slope" arguments are related to "tit for tat". Consider SCOTUS nominations--the Republicans start with Bork, the Democrats with Thomas but either way we've evolved away from the Senate confirmations of the Eisenhower/JFK/LBJ era (though from an old Democrat's viewpoint the real starting point was Gerald Ford's crusade against Abe Fortas. 😉
