One of the worst grinding horrors of America is the conform or die mentality so anything seeking to explain why it happens is of interest.
How you dress, talk, eat and even what you allow yourself to feel - these often unspoken rules of a group are social norms, and many are internalized to such a degree that you probably don't even notice them. Following norms, however, can sometimes be costly for individuals if norms require sacrifice for the good of the group. How and why did humans evolve to follow such norms in the first place?
A new study from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis explores this question, shedding light on the origins of human cooperation.
The results, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that the ability of humans to internalize social norms is expected to evolve under a wide range of conditions, helping to forge a kind of cooperation that becomes instinctive.
Phys.org: The right thing to do: Why do we follow unspoken group rules?
All of that looks benign so far in terms of generic socialization since that much at least is vital if only to avoid car crashes due to lack of agreement on rules.
The Rockhouse jumped straight to the punchline and the interested student can determine from that whether there is point to reading the body of the article.
Gavrilets also said the models could be helpful in social and economic policymaking.
"Changing social institutions is a common strategy for changing human behavior," he said. "Sometimes there are attempts to borrow or transfer institutions from one country or region to another. Often such strategies fail miserably, however. Our models can help explain why.
Generalizing our models can lead to the development of better tools for predicting consequences of introducing certain social policies and institutions and in identifying the most efficient strategies for changing or optimizing group behaviors."
- PO
By what right does anyone anywhere engineer social policy making.
The most obvious example of changing social institutions is the use of Facebook and other social networks to filter news and pacify the crowd with controlled content.
The Rockhouse wants some more of this so ...
The researchers used computer simulations to model both individual behavior in joint group actions and underlying genetic machinery controlling behavior. The researchers worked from the premise that adherence to norms is socially reinforced by the approval of, and rewards to, individuals who follow them and by punishment of norm violators. The researchers' goal was to see whether certain norms get internalized, meaning that acting according to a norm becomes an end in itself, rather than a tool to get something or to avoid social sanctions.
- PO
We can see overt manipulation of the audience in many realms so they have our attention with avoiding social sanctions as a reaction.
Already I'm a bad guy ... a free-rider:
In the model, individuals make choices about participating in collective actions that require cooperation, and individuals who don't cooperate, or "free riders," can face consequences.
- PO
Ed: don't worry. It's science.
We will read through to discover whether it's science. That verdict is not yet determined.
Specifically, the authors looked at two general kinds of collective actions requiring cooperation that our ancestors might have regularly faced. The first type of group action involves "us-vs.-nature" scenarios, where groups must defend against predators and hunt and breed cooperatively. The second type of group action is "us-vs.-them," which constitutes direct conflicts or other costly competition with other groups over territory, mating, access to trade routes, and the like.
The model found that norm internalization readily evolves in both scenarios.
The model also shows that encouraging peer punishment of free-riders is much more efficient in promulgating cooperation in collective actions than promoting participation itself.
- PO
Ah, there we have it. Burning me at the stake gives incentive to the others to conform. They need me.
Ed: to burn?
Roger that
Reverse the situation and you have social policymaking with Christian tent revivals and sacrificing chickens, etc but that doesn't do anything except to get the faithful frothy; it won't create any more of them. However, after you burn a few witches, you'll get converts like Corn Flakes falling from the sky.
As to whether it's science, have a talk with this fellow:
Lead author Sergey Gavrilets, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and mathematics at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and NIMBioS associate director for scientific activities.
- PO
The Rockhouse would be fascinated to hear more from him.
How you dress, talk, eat and even what you allow yourself to feel - these often unspoken rules of a group are social norms, and many are internalized to such a degree that you probably don't even notice them. Following norms, however, can sometimes be costly for individuals if norms require sacrifice for the good of the group. How and why did humans evolve to follow such norms in the first place?
A new study from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis explores this question, shedding light on the origins of human cooperation.
The results, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that the ability of humans to internalize social norms is expected to evolve under a wide range of conditions, helping to forge a kind of cooperation that becomes instinctive.
Phys.org: The right thing to do: Why do we follow unspoken group rules?
All of that looks benign so far in terms of generic socialization since that much at least is vital if only to avoid car crashes due to lack of agreement on rules.
The Rockhouse jumped straight to the punchline and the interested student can determine from that whether there is point to reading the body of the article.
Gavrilets also said the models could be helpful in social and economic policymaking.
"Changing social institutions is a common strategy for changing human behavior," he said. "Sometimes there are attempts to borrow or transfer institutions from one country or region to another. Often such strategies fail miserably, however. Our models can help explain why.
Generalizing our models can lead to the development of better tools for predicting consequences of introducing certain social policies and institutions and in identifying the most efficient strategies for changing or optimizing group behaviors."
- PO
By what right does anyone anywhere engineer social policy making.
The most obvious example of changing social institutions is the use of Facebook and other social networks to filter news and pacify the crowd with controlled content.
The Rockhouse wants some more of this so ...
The researchers used computer simulations to model both individual behavior in joint group actions and underlying genetic machinery controlling behavior. The researchers worked from the premise that adherence to norms is socially reinforced by the approval of, and rewards to, individuals who follow them and by punishment of norm violators. The researchers' goal was to see whether certain norms get internalized, meaning that acting according to a norm becomes an end in itself, rather than a tool to get something or to avoid social sanctions.
- PO
We can see overt manipulation of the audience in many realms so they have our attention with avoiding social sanctions as a reaction.
Already I'm a bad guy ... a free-rider:
In the model, individuals make choices about participating in collective actions that require cooperation, and individuals who don't cooperate, or "free riders," can face consequences.
- PO
Ed: don't worry. It's science.
We will read through to discover whether it's science. That verdict is not yet determined.
Specifically, the authors looked at two general kinds of collective actions requiring cooperation that our ancestors might have regularly faced. The first type of group action involves "us-vs.-nature" scenarios, where groups must defend against predators and hunt and breed cooperatively. The second type of group action is "us-vs.-them," which constitutes direct conflicts or other costly competition with other groups over territory, mating, access to trade routes, and the like.
The model found that norm internalization readily evolves in both scenarios.
The model also shows that encouraging peer punishment of free-riders is much more efficient in promulgating cooperation in collective actions than promoting participation itself.
- PO
Ah, there we have it. Burning me at the stake gives incentive to the others to conform. They need me.
Ed: to burn?
Roger that
Reverse the situation and you have social policymaking with Christian tent revivals and sacrificing chickens, etc but that doesn't do anything except to get the faithful frothy; it won't create any more of them. However, after you burn a few witches, you'll get converts like Corn Flakes falling from the sky.
As to whether it's science, have a talk with this fellow:
Lead author Sergey Gavrilets, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and mathematics at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and NIMBioS associate director for scientific activities.
- PO
The Rockhouse would be fascinated to hear more from him.
No comments:
Post a Comment