Tutskii
   |
Posted - 2011.01.30 01:08:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Tutskii on 30/01/2011 01:09:02
Edited by: Tutskii on 30/01/2011 01:08:39
 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Though I honestly find difficult to accept objections like: "new managers get more and more burden" when faced with the oh-so-dire task of knowing their empire name, corp name and what kind of new investment they propose.
You misunderstand, the objection is "Solution looking for a problem". What you mention is but more problems caused by said solution while not solving anything itself.
"Because I came up with it and I'd like it" is not a reason to make things even more burdensome, and MD even more of a dead, closed society.
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Cyaxares II
tldr; version MD participants behave very similar to humans.
This conclusion is trivial in the sense that it is manifestly true. But part of the point of the OP was exactly that: MD participants behave very similar to humans in general, as opposed to the frequently put claim that MD participants behave as they do because they are roleplaying certain types of humans. That is to say that the behaviours do not stem from pointless roleplaying but from a naturally evolved response to environments of a certain type.
The main relevance of the OP to MD was that I thought certain people here (yourself included) would find some of Sperber's views interesting, as I had found the evolutionary perspective interesting (which was the focus of his paper rather more than of his article). Some things may be trivially true or obvious but only come to the front of one's mind when stated, as was the case with this perspective for myself.
I'm not sure of that, have you heard of the Stanford prison experiment? Human beings act in certain ways due to being human beings, yes, but they also act in ways that they believe are expected of them merely because they believe those ways are expected of them. The obedience Milgram experiment demonstrates this too.
So it would come down to: "Are some people expected to act as auditors, money managers\etc and have come to fulfill those roles due to that?
But where it becomes interesting, is, I believe: "Do otherwise honest people scam because everything indicates that people are expected to scam?"
Does the average reaction to new offerings in a format not favored by the "MD elite" create positive punishment for good behavior (trying to start a legitimate offering), while perceiving that actual scammers (who tend to have quite structured offerings) are rewarded, and expected to scam?
Those are the questions that come to my mind looking at this place.
Layers of needless complexity keep being added (or attempting to be added) with dubious benefit beyond making the effort required to participate in its society superior to the effort required to adquire the money in the game. Coupled with the reaction to most offerings (which can not be dismissed as scams as they are nipped in the bud, but I would venture that it is not likely or possible that every rejected bond was a scam and more a sign of the poisonous and overzealous environment, you could say that MD is creating a survival of the fittest where the honest but unfamiliar with its customs are nipped, and the scammers familiar with them are encouraged.
Creating a natural selection favoring scammers, so to say.
|