People Behave Socially and 'Well' Even Without Rules

[KichigaiNeko]

More from Science Daily

FULL ARTICLE

ScienceDaily (Jan. 16, 2012) — Millions of human interactions were assessed during the study which included actions such as communication, founding and ending friendships, trading goods, sleeping, moving, however also starting hostilities, attacks and punishment. The game does not suggest any rules and everyone can live with their avatar (i.e. with their "game character" in the virtual world) as they choose. "And the result of this is not anarchy," says Thurner. "The participants organise themselves as a social group with good intents. Almost all the actions are positive."

[Shell B]

I always suspected as much. We make our own rules. I think, on the whole, people prefer kindness to hostility.

[KichigaiNeko]

And by the same token...this "turn the other cheek nonsense" goes out the door and we WILL get aggressive.

[passionatefool]

Humans are complex social creature, they interact and form bonds....this is where morality came from. Not some shitty book, a poor excuse for literature.

[reverendjeremiah]

People Behave Socially and 'Well' Even Without Rules

Im sure you expected this from me....



ANARCHY

(A)

(E)

[Forsaken]

Even some animal species behave well without any predefined set of rules. Wonder which version of the bible do they read? Or maybe these animals have more thinking capability than the theists? We will never know...

[tackattack]

I would have never figured you for an optomist TSQ, j/k. To contrast the article though, I believe the fact it was al done virtually to be a detriment to the study. It show's how we intellectually want things to end up, which is hopefull. I think where it falls short of showing the veracity of mob mentality is that virtual choices distance us from the natural hormonal responces and "real" reactions present in an actual society. I think it bodes well for us if we end up like surrogates or the matrix, but in a reality without virtually dealing with life I think we, as a society, need to work on overcoming our biological insticnts and nature. Just my 2 cents.

[Tiberius]

People Behave Socially and 'Well' Even Without Rules

Im sure you expected this from me....



ANARCHY

Ditto

[reverendjeremiah]

People Behave Socially and 'Well' Even Without Rules

Im sure you expected this from me....



ANARCHY

Ditto

And notice how they say "..and the result of this is not anarchy" But the results they describe is EXACTLY what Anarchy is, and how many anarcho-philosophies work.

I am so tired of the word "anarchy" being taken out of definition or being talked about as if it is the lowest of the low that anyone would go. the net is full of crap like that..suggesting that without these lying theiving politician scum bags we would all break down into savage, violent mindless animals just mindlessly shooting and killing anyone and everyone on the streets. And then they call THAT anarchy.

That isnt Anarchy. Thats a mob of uncivilized psychos and assorted scum bags who would quickly be subdued by the rest of the population WITHOUT the requirement of lying politicians and their fascist police thugs.

Even Webster dictionary(Ive had issues with Websters dictionary ever sense I read it cover to cover during the lunch period of my entire 9th grade in Highschool) attributes more to it than what should be:

Anarchy is simply "without rulers", Thats it. Some anarchist support the idea of a government, some dont. some support the idea of a state, some dont, some support capitalism, some dont. But lets see what webster decided to tack on to the definition;

1

a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government


2

a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

And they add in that it is a "utopian society", which they mean to call it "impossible" and "impractical".

So, in other words, Webster is merely spreading his belief that a society without rulers cannot happen.

Like I said..I have my issues with much, MUCH more from Websters big fucked up book.

[Autumnlicious]

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?