[Intellectual?] Authority and Social Behaviour

[Appocomaster]

such an impressive title! Considering the shit thread I just wrote, I thought I'd write something that's been floating in my head for a while.

Maybe it's extremely obvious, but society is built on obediance.

For example, I get on a bus. I refuse to pay (being a rebellous GD member). Bus driver asks me to pay. I walk to the end of the bus and sit down.

Either:
the driver has to get someone to get me off the bus, or try and wrestle me off himself (while waiting at the bus stop), or
the driver lets me off with not paying.
Either he pisses off everyone by delaying their journey (ok, so I might have to pay a fine or something eventually but if it keeps happening people won't use the busses so much), or people find out they can get away without paying and so more people try it.
Either way, the bus service ends up pretty screwed.

Society can only deal with a certain % of people not obeying every day law. Kids are finding out that people can't stop them when they start screwing around in class - more and more teachers simply can't handle them. It's hard to earn respect, and they generally don't just respect a teacher and do what they say because they've been told to.
Maybe it is or was instinctive to obey the "authority figures", but it seems that the coming generations will do less so, and I wonder how society as a whole will handle it. While I don't think they'll get some big cars and start driving down the wrong side of the road (obviously the righthand lane!), the only difference between anarchy and society, really, is that in one there is a measure of respect for each other, or at least rules in place for the benefit of all. Also, if people see it appearing in one place, they'll probably work to make it happen somewhere else. As soon as food and power supplies are disrupted. it's a matter of days until the world grinds to a halt (3 or something?). I know I'm jumping ahead a bit, but sometimes it seems such a thin line, and while it's almost considered insane to do things that don't conform as such to society, it seems that idea is being changed more and more, which is bad.
Maybe I'm insane.

[Dante Hicks]

I think it's possible to seperate out "obedience" from "generally not being a twat". I know lots of people who have "a problem with authority" who still manage to do the right thing.

But yeah, there's a potential for problem. The issue seems to be a conflict between the aims and methods used in criminal justice, education and economic policy.

Oh, and in the passenger situation in most cases it's how other passengers / the friends of the person who avoids the fair react that determines what happens. In most cases the other passengers just sit their embarrassed, not knowing what to say/do. Occasionally someone will intervene (which admittedly just escalates things sometimes) and sometimes the avoidee's friends will chastise them into doing something. Personally I don't see why the driver's bother - I certainly wouldn't.

I've never seen a bus driver actually bother trying to get someone off the bus, they generally just phone the police.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

Either he pisses off everyone by delaying their journey (ok, so I might have to pay a fine or something eventually but if it keeps happening people won't use the busses so much)

The fact that the fines exist mean you don't keep doing it.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Personally I don't see why the driver's bother - I certainly wouldn't.
.

Because he looks like a passive pussy if he just shrugs his shoulders and drives off without doing anything.

It's a basic fact that society can only function if most people obey the rules; there simply arent enough resources available to enforce laws if the majority of people decide to disobey them. If most people decided overnight that there was nothing wrong with shoplifting, then the laws regulating shoplifting would have to be either modified or scrapped - it just isnt possible to take prosecute everyone if most of the country is doing it. The would apply to murder and, more topically, copyright infringement. The problem facing the music/film industries is that a lot of people have decided that downloading copyrighted material is A-OK, and the government just doesnt have the resources to do anything about it - you cant sue everyone. On a far smaller scale, my college is currently trying to implement some loony dress code (dont ask), but it isnt working since almost the entirity of the entire student body is ignoring it. If the majority of people arent cooperating with the law, then it cannot have any real force and it becomes unenforcable.

The problem then, from the governmental point of view, is how to persuade people that they should cooperate with proposed laws. Raw force isnt the answer for the reasons given above. So you need to resort to more subtle techniques, generally involving socialisation processes where people are taught from birth that the established order is "just how the world is and must be", hence transgressions are 'wrong'. Although there are many ways that this can be implemented, one of the more interesting distinctions (imo) is that made between 'shame' and 'guilt' cultures. In Judeo-Christian countries like ours, morality is highly individual and tends to be organised around the notion of personal guilt - people obey laws because they are taught that disobeying is somehow 'wrong'. The emphasis is on the individual consequences of disobeying the laws - doing bad things makes you a 'bad person', and this might be reenforced by cultural myths like Heaven and Hell. But in other cultures (the typical examples are Ancient Greece and oriental countries like Japan), the organising principle tends to be more based on a public sense of shame, rather than individual guilt. In these cultures, people are taught to conform to laws not because they are the Right Thing handed down from God on high, but because disobeying makes them look bad in front of their peers, and brings shame upon themselves and their families. In these cultures, people tend to obey not because they feel that obeying is 'morally right', but because they dont want to be judged negatively by others (there's connections here with good/bad vs good/evil in Nietzsche; guilt tends to be an artifice of slave morality). Most cultures do have elements of both though; to return to the busdriver example, the driver robably would try to throw you off the bus - not because he believes its 'wrong' that people should get free bus rides, but rather because he looks like an idiot in front of a large group of people if he pussies out of confronting you. There are also occassions where subcultures can base their morality on different notions from the mainstream; for instance mafia morality is (afaik) deeply entrenched in ideas of shame and dishonour, while there probably isnt a lot of guilt

The problem we're currently having is that we are a guilt culture that has lost our source of guilt, due to both the death of religion and the associated rise in moral relativism. It seems almost quaint to say that something is 'just wrong', and a lot of people see nothing wrong with doing pretty much anything, since there isnt really anything holding them back.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by queball

The fact that the fines exist mean you don't keep doing it.

You don't have to keep doing it, as long as there's enough people around with you to do it

[Yahwe]

This isn't a bad thing. It's not a problem.

It's a good thing. It's why we have democracy and why the law constantly changes and adapts itself in order to represent the present society. It's part of the continual evolution of society and culture, the constant questioning of subjective moral values, the pursuit of Justice.

This is a wonderful wonderful truth. It's not a problem and it's nothing to worry about.

PS. gordon knows nothing about ancient greece

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

PS. gordon knows nothing about ancient greece

I know they hated fatties lol owned

[queball]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

You don't have to keep doing it, as long as there's enough people around with you to do it

I don't understand what you are proposing. Your aim is to get a free bus ride. Simply disrupting the bus doesn't gain you anything. Swamping the bus won't work. If half the people on the bus aren't paying the driver might as well call the police and collect hundreds of pounds that way. And then you'll get in trouble for conspiracy (to get away with not paying 50p). Society works because we can easily analyse individual interests and we clamp down hard on any collective action.

[JonnyBGood]

I don't think it's as much of a problem are you're proposing appocomaster. While I would agree that it's true that the younger generations are questioning authority more both unconsciously in school, and consciously during college and such in general there are very few people moving into the working world filled with rage about society and the man. Plus a lot of the people who have a deep distrust of authority had a strong sense of brotherhood with their fellow man or whatever so through social pressure, actual and perceived, they'll avoid some of the more insane excesses that you might think could pop up. A lot of the just outright criminals will get nailed for other things besides not paying bus fares as well.


That said the French are intent on being contrary as always

[Appocomaster]

50p ?!?!? where do you live. It's more expensive in Yorkshire.
I'm not trying to plan an evil bus organisation, I was trying to illustrate how if more than a certain number of people rebel, the things that hold society together fall apart. which sounds obvious when I put it that way

[JonnyBGood]

qbll gets the schoolchild fare :)))

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I don't think it's as much of a problem are you're proposing appocomaster. While I would agree that it's true that the younger generations are questioning authority more both unconsciously in school, and consciously during college and such in general there are very few people moving into the working world filled with rage about society and the man.

I didn't say society would fall apart. Though Yahwe and others have pointed out it's built to adapt as society changes.

Plus a lot of the people who have a deep distrust of authority had a strong sense of brotherhood with their fellow man or whatever so through social pressure, actual and perceived, they'll avoid some of the more insane excesses that you might think could pop up. A lot of the just outright criminals will get nailed for other things besides not paying bus fares as well.

I'd say that most or all people who don't like government etc authority would have a lot of respect for at least some, if not all of their peer group. I wasn't trying to say that the society was on the verge of collapsing; I merely was trying to show that society and anachy are kept apart because people decide to follow each other and conform.

I guess if you want to get technical, we arrived here because it was the only way we could survive - living in anachy probably has a lot less in the way of survival chances over time, and naturally settles down to settlements of certain sizes, which builds up to civilisations. The human race seems built to try and keep itself alive and be strong, almost as if it were alive itself, but I wonder if there's a "natural group size" that over time, civilisation tends towards. I've been spending too much time doing dynmical systems problems

[queball]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

50p ?!?!? where do you live. It's more expensive in Yorkshire.
I'm not trying to plan an evil bus organisation, I was trying to illustrate how if more than a certain number of people rebel, the things that hold society together fall apart. which sounds obvious when I put it that way

What I'm looking for is some motivation. Those people aren't going to rebel if they don't gain anything by rebelling. If they will gain something by rebelling then in all likelihood they'll already have rebelled.

A man, such as a bus driver, selling in some market, has a privileged position. He can choose whether to provide a service or not. He might find it cheaper to allow some free riders; he might accept some level of theft. He knows that people will try to scam him whenever it's worth their time and he writes his business plan accordingly. If you don't accept this then the world will indeed seem precarious.

The only significant groups of people who seem to disrupt things without having sensible goals in mind seem to be extremist Muslims (and maybe animal rights activists).

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by queball

What I'm looking for is some motivation. Those people aren't going to rebel if they don't gain anything by rebelling. If they will gain something by rebelling then in all likelihood they'll already have rebelled.

They have a world to win, and nothing to lose but their chains.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Because he looks like a passive pussy if he just shrugs his shoulders and drives off without doing anything.

"Looks like a pussy" to who exactly? When on the bus do you pay attention to who pays and who doesn't? It's not like anyone is going to notice, and most of the time people are fairly subtle about not paying (e.g. they try and sneak on behind someone on or something).

Obviously if someone get's on the bus shouting "I'm not going to pay, **** you all!" then he might have to react but that seems a fairly rare ocurrance. Otherwise the only way he's going to "look like a pussy" is if he makes a big deal of it and then pussies out of a confrontation.

This seems to be like a general rule. There are three basic approaches to slights (real or imagined) against you. You can either ignore it, respond in force, or get really annoyed and then bail out of a possible confrontation. The people who do the latter seem to have it worst. One of my friends get's really annoyed when people barge into him on a crowded pavement, and get's really angry about it. Still, he's too much of a faggot to actually do anything about it so he just quietly seethes. Because of that he looks all the more ridiculous. If he just laughed it off / ignored it then he wouldn't lose any face at all.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

I guess if you want to get technical, we arrived here because it was the only way we could survive - living in anachy probably has a lot less in the way of survival chances over time, and naturally settles down to settlements of certain sizes, which builds up to civilisations. The human race seems built to try and keep itself alive and be strong, almost as if it were alive itself, but I wonder if there's a "natural group size" that over time, civilisation tends towards. I've been spending too much time doing dynmical systems problems

I seem to recall reading that 130 people is the ideal village/community size. Empires and such don't really appear to be stable in the long-term. I wouldn't say we have enough base material to draw really definite long-term conclusions on the longevity of certain civilisations to be honest.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I seem to recall reading that 130 people is the ideal village/community size.

Ideal for what? I certainly wouldnt want to live in a 130 person community. This sounds like one of those bizarre 'value judgements disguised as descriptive statements' pieces of pseudoscience.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Ideal for what? I certainly wouldnt want to live in a 130 person community. This sounds like one of those bizarre 'value judgements disguised as descriptive statements' pieces of pseudoscience.

Ideal for sustaining themselves and perhaps developing a couple of things. You know, say 30 old people doing basic work and saying how much better it was on the old day, 40 or so guys as the labour force doing everything, 40 women doing cooking / cleaning / organsing and 20 children / young adults. or something.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

Ideal for sustaining themselves and perhaps developing a couple of things. You know, say 30 old people doing basic work and saying how much better it was on the old day, 40 or so guys as the labour force doing everything, 40 women doing cooking / cleaning / organsing and 20 children / young adults. or something.

I would suggest that our society, with the wealth of technology available to us as a result of the specialisation of labour which can only really occur in medium-large societies, is better at sustaining itself than a small group of cavemen throwing spears at dinosaurs.

The obvious question of course would be "if societies of 130 people are better at sustaining themselves, then why dont they exist any more".

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I would suggest that our society, with the wealth of technology available to us largely as a result of specialisation of labour, is better at sustaining itself than a small group of cavemen throwing spears at dinosaurs.

The "100 People" thing is of course nonsense, but I don't think they meant the total population of the world should be 100. Perhaps just that human beings (due to the circumstances we evolved in or whatever) have problems socialising in groups of more than 100 (memory limitations possibly, I don't know) and therefore we could have some sort of modular society.

It's kind of like saying you should only have 100 lines of code per function without meaning that the entire project should face the same restrictions.

[Nodrog]

Well the same problem applies. Unless you had a huge amount of intergroup trading then you couldnt have much labour specialisation, and if the society was based around intergroup trading then it seems odd to say that people actually lived in 100 person units. I mean technically I live in a 3 person group (me and 2 flatmates), but this ignores the fact that most of my day is spent trading/interacting with people who live in different houses.


edit: The function example doesnt work, because functions are generally independent black-boxes, whereas groups living in society are heavily interrelated.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by horn

so why is it nonsense ?

Because alienation / whatever we're defining this "problem" isn't dependent on just the amount of people in a society. London has had (roughly) the same population for the last 50+ years, yet the claim is that these issues have changed drastically in that period.

the economical drawbacks still don't discredit the possibilty of it increasing moral behaviour.
(neither does labelling it pseudoscience)

It depends what your policy goal is really. Having a total population of 100 would have various advantages but they wouldn't outweigh the disadvantages.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

edit: The function example doesnt work, because functions are generally independent black-boxes, whereas groups living in society are heavily interrelated.

Well, yeah but maybe the goal of the 100 people utopia crowd is to make things more "black boxy" ( ) so people would have less contact with "strangers". They'd eat meals with their friends/neighbours and stuff like that.

[JonnyBGood]

If you have more than 130 people not everyone in the community will know everyone else which significantly increases the chances of crimes being committed within the community. If you have less you'll struggle to have enough genetic diversity. It's for a pre-industrial society incidentally. Basically it looked at the basic human necessities for survival of each individual and the community as a whole and ignored things like drinking alcohol and having sex with hot women and using the internet to watch football or whatever.





PS You will notice nod that I didn't say I agreed with it myself.