3 ms·

Does that tell us anything dark about how they are in the real world; well, probably a little, I could guess that a really awkward guy on a forum is likely a bi

Does that tell us anything dark about how they are in the real world; well, probably a little, I could guess that a really awkward guy on a forum is likely a bit awkward in the real world. How people act when they're completely anonymous is, in some sense, how they really are. Once you tie some traceability or accountability to their words or actions, words and actions change to manage image and status.

derefr 16y ago
There's this thing in game design called the "magic circle": the "barrier" between what is socially understood to happen inside a game, vs. outside. It's entirely a social construction, and therefore entirely a voluntary agreement entered into by the players, for the explicit purpose of detaching consequences inside a game from those outside. The reason people seek to create such a construct, is that, when you don't have to worry about consequences "leaking" from the game, you're free to adopt an entirely different utility function within the circle, or even a variety of different utility functions, to explore the game rules' (and the other players') reaction to the particular mode of play. Through this, we can learn, in a safe environment, what the consequences are to adopting various roles (such as that of the "griefer" or the "twinker".) We evolved in an environment where there was no separation between the ideas of "action stripped of identity" (i.e. anonymous interaction) and "action stripped of consequence" (i.e. game-play). Thus, most socially-adjusted humans learn to see all anonymous interactions as game-play, and thus to apply their knowledge of in-game interactions: agents who seem sociopathic are really just Playing to Win (http://www.sirlin.net/ptw http://www.sirlin.net/ptw), agents who keep repeating the same stupid actions over and over are likely looking for exploitable bugs in the game rules, etc. This even crosses over into what most would term "real life": children on a playground who haven't integrated the idea that they're playing a semi-consequenceless social game 100% of the time they're at school, will usually report being bullied (by someone who does understand the concept, and is exploring the position-space in the game.)
- randallsquared 16y ago
  This even crosses over into what most would term "real life": children on a playground who haven't integrated the idea that they're playing a semi-consequenceless social game 100% of the time they're at school, will usually report being bullied (by someone who does understand the concept, and is exploring the position-space in the game.) I do not know how I can politely convey the depth of my feelings about what you have said, here.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - elmindreda 16y ago
    Let me try. Real human beings are scarred for life by this "game". If that's not a consequence then I don't know what is.
    - derefr 16y ago
      I meant that it was consequenceless for the bullies ("consequence" being a term from decision theory, where you can compare a consequenceless Prisoner's Dilemma—where everyone should defect—to an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma—where people can take revenge for slights in past rounds, and so everyone should cooperate.) The problem is really that we throw a bunch of kids together who aren't yet socialized, have one another far outside their monkeyspheres, and likely won't see the same faces next year (let alone after graduation), and expect them to play this game without role-models (i.e. mixed-age play) or useful/just arbitration. The bullies are just a symptom of a broken system. (And, if you're wondering, I was on the receiving end of this. The internalization of the idea that, for them, it was truly just a game, actually somewhat reversed any sort of scarring that could have occurred, although I do admit feeling quite suicidal in sixth grade.)
ErrantX 16y ago
Once you tie some traceability or accountability to their words or actions, words and actions change to manage image and status. I argue this is not a trivial aspect to the matter :) Sure; if real world had a social structure similar to the internet people would interact very differently. But we don't. It doesn't necessarily mean that someone who acts the idiot online is simply an idiot in real life, but hides it well :) It just means people are reacting to two different social environments. HN is a classic case in point; people here are friendly and polite in interactions. We all try to be a bit more intellectually stimulating, because that is the social structure.

derefr 16y ago

There's this thing in game design called the "magic circle": the "barrier" between what is socially understood to happen inside a game, vs. outside. It's entirely a social construction, and therefore entirely a voluntary agreement entered into by the players, for the explicit purpose of detaching consequences inside a game from those outside. The reason people seek to create such a construct, is that, when you don't have to worry about consequences "leaking" from the game, you're free to adopt an entirely different utility function within the circle, or even a variety of different utility functions, to explore the game rules' (and the other players') reaction to the particular mode of play. Through this, we can learn, in a safe environment, what the consequences are to adopting various roles (such as that of the "griefer" or the "twinker".) We evolved in an environment where there was no separation between the ideas of "action stripped of identity" (i.e. anonymous interaction) and "action stripped of consequence" (i.e. game-play). Thus, most socially-adjusted humans learn to see all anonymous interactions as game-play, and thus to apply their knowledge of in-game interactions: agents who seem sociopathic are really just Playing to Win (http://www.sirlin.net/ptw http://www.sirlin.net/ptw), agents who keep repeating the same stupid actions over and over are likely looking for exploitable bugs in the game rules, etc. This even crosses over into what most would term "real life": children on a playground who haven't integrated the idea that they're playing a semi-consequenceless social game 100% of the time they're at school, will usually report being bullied (by someone who does understand the concept, and is exploring the position-space in the game.)

randallsquared 16y ago
This even crosses over into what most would term "real life": children on a playground who haven't integrated the idea that they're playing a semi-consequenceless social game 100% of the time they're at school, will usually report being bullied (by someone who does understand the concept, and is exploring the position-space in the game.) I do not know how I can politely convey the depth of my feelings about what you have said, here.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- elmindreda 16y ago
  Let me try. Real human beings are scarred for life by this "game". If that's not a consequence then I don't know what is.
  - derefr 16y ago
    I meant that it was consequenceless for the bullies ("consequence" being a term from decision theory, where you can compare a consequenceless Prisoner's Dilemma—where everyone should defect—to an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma—where people can take revenge for slights in past rounds, and so everyone should cooperate.) The problem is really that we throw a bunch of kids together who aren't yet socialized, have one another far outside their monkeyspheres, and likely won't see the same faces next year (let alone after graduation), and expect them to play this game without role-models (i.e. mixed-age play) or useful/just arbitration. The bullies are just a symptom of a broken system. (And, if you're wondering, I was on the receiving end of this. The internalization of the idea that, for them, it was truly just a game, actually somewhat reversed any sort of scarring that could have occurred, although I do admit feeling quite suicidal in sixth grade.)

ErrantX 16y ago

Once you tie some traceability or accountability to their words or actions, words and actions change to manage image and status. I argue this is not a trivial aspect to the matter :) Sure; if real world had a social structure similar to the internet people would interact very differently. But we don't. It doesn't necessarily mean that someone who acts the idiot online is simply an idiot in real life, but hides it well :) It just means people are reacting to two different social environments. HN is a classic case in point; people here are friendly and polite in interactions. We all try to be a bit more intellectually stimulating, because that is the social structure.