If people form social circles so well without rules, then why do I and the other mods have to be constantly weeding out bad members?
I find this study deficient in that it doesn't study a real world group of greater numbers than a small tribe.
Games are easy to derive bullshit from. I know, I develop on them. And I can tell you that a LOT of it is contrived and mostly without innate value (as in, you don't have much to lose from it).
Add in the capability for actually robbing people and having them lose REAL money, then we'll see how "peaceful" and self sustaining these communities really are.
Lifetime of such a social circle matters as well -- what good is a group if it lasts only a fraction of a lifetime, when we have long established institutions (universities et al) that easily outlast the typical lifetime. Knowledge and resource acquisition takes time, and the ethereal short lived nature of the game they studied does not take that into account.
Color me an extremely critical skeptic of this anarchist stuff.
You can crow about the nice stuff. What I really care about is the long term stability, social dynamics in a real world, with life, death, resources and theft.
Mind you, Somalia could be considered in anarchy for the above definition 1a (Absence of government) -- I'll ignore the rest of the definition as it incurs an emotional context that is not required in discussing an-archy (without government).
They're not forming spontaneous social circles that stabilize the region. I wonder why.
Perhaps the real world is much more difficult to model than some crap game?
I find this study deficient in that it doesn't study a real world group of greater numbers than a small tribe.
Games are easy to derive bullshit from. I know, I develop on them. And I can tell you that a LOT of it is contrived and mostly without innate value (as in, you don't have much to lose from it).
Add in the capability for actually robbing people and having them lose REAL money, then we'll see how "peaceful" and self sustaining these communities really are.
Lifetime of such a social circle matters as well -- what good is a group if it lasts only a fraction of a lifetime, when we have long established institutions (universities et al) that easily outlast the typical lifetime. Knowledge and resource acquisition takes time, and the ethereal short lived nature of the game they studied does not take that into account.
Color me an extremely critical skeptic of this anarchist stuff.
You can crow about the nice stuff. What I really care about is the long term stability, social dynamics in a real world, with life, death, resources and theft.
Mind you, Somalia could be considered in anarchy for the above definition 1a (Absence of government) -- I'll ignore the rest of the definition as it incurs an emotional context that is not required in discussing an-archy (without government).
They're not forming spontaneous social circles that stabilize the region. I wonder why.
Perhaps the real world is much more difficult to model than some crap game?
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
