From: rhinoceros (rhinoceros@freemail.gr)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 17:39:01 MDT
[Keith Henson]
Meta analysis:
People are highly rewarded by attention. (The reason is rooted in our evolutionary history as social primates in small tribes. See "Sex, Drugs and Cults" for details.)
On the net and in some people, the kind of attention, positive/negative is ignored. This results in people being rewarded by being flamed--resulting more provoking, more flame. People are very often conditioned by the responses they get in cases where they don't understand it at all. A classic example of this is the psych classes that condition a professor to stay on the left or right edge of a stage during lectures.
<snip>
[rhinoceros]
Thanks for the psychological meta-analysis Keith. The theme of indiscriminate attention rewards does seem to be all around us. But I wonder... isn't it a special case when we have to do with a particular persistent meme which the carrier brings up all the time at all the places he frequents. This is especially annoying when it happens in a group which has taken the oposite position after long discussions, and currently aspires to build on that position. This has happened here many times in the past, with different memes and carriers. Is that Wade peson also stuck with a single persistent memeset?
The remark about answering only to the posts which have an apparent problem is something I had noticed too. Of course, it is easier to reply to something outright wrong or contrary to our belief system. I wonder if we can put some effort to equip our "serious posts" with more explicit and obvious "handles" for the reader.
By the way, I read the #virus IRC chat where you first brought up this meta-analysis. That chat, between Mermaid, Lucifer, and Keith Henson, and goomba, lasted more than 2 hours and was really illuminating. Well worth reading.
Putting aside the "niceties", one can see 3 very important points of view which will have to be reconciled. As I read it:
Mermaid pointed out the need for group identity, reaching out, and achievement, as opposed to being an introverted community with reputations earned "between us". For this reason, she had some reservations to our recent heavy engagement with rulemaking and to the suggested VirianNames which some may find embarassing.
Lucifer pointed out how the system under development takes care of some of the issues, and he was mostly interested in figuring out how some of the desired goals can be translated to practical measures and encompassed in a better system.
Keith Henson offered some very interesting analysis of what we see here. Part of that was the topic of his post in this thread. He also made a reference to the evolutionary (genetic) base of group dynamics, and suggested a book on "Chimpanzee Politics".
goomba provided the discussion with some feedback on how the younger virians see the process.
I do have some past experience with small and rather introverted groups with big ambitions. Fierce internal struggles and splinterings are very common in this kind of groups. The excuse of "cleansing the group so that we can proceed" was often heard. My explanation for this phenomenon used to be that "the arena is the group itself". The most ambitious members of such a group tend to settle for seeking a reputation not in the big world by means of the group but in the group itself. So, behavioral shortcuts are acceptable, because in a group of 100 persons you can "do calculations" whereas in the big world you can only behave according to the common codes.
This is less common in bigger groups which are already in the "big arena", because real things are in stake there.
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29364> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 17:39:41 MDT