SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A study published earlier this month in the journal Science Advances examines the effects of onymity – that is, the opposite of anonymity – on Chinese students in a classic two-player social experiment in which the most rational choice is betrayal. What researchers found, however, seems to defy rationality: Participants who learned each other's names opted for cooperation over treachery.
In an age marked by xenophobia and political polarization, studying onymity may offer insight into practical ways of helping strangers get along. This particular study suggests that even small steps toward getting to know one another can bring big benefits for society as a whole, whether it's in a town hall meeting, on a jammed roadway, or in an online discussion forum.
"Since the spirit of cooperation that social cohesion is based upon is crumbling away in some places, be it on Facebook or in societies that are about to be torn apart about issues such as immigration, we sought insight into what enhances cooperation," said co-author Jürgen Kurths from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, who contributed statistical analyses, in a statement.
No self-respecting geek would ever cooperate with others.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 28 2017, @06:56AM
In general, true.
In this case in particular:
1. unfortunately you didn't address the Linux case - e.g. at least Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox were personally known to each other, they are self-respecting geeks and they did collaborate (which makes this a counterexample to your asserted rule)
2. the Venn-diagram I linked - here it is once again [energyvanguard.com] - classifies geeks as not socially inept (thus "getting to know one another socially" is not unusual). Your assertion may be right for dorks, nerds and dweebs.
Note that, at least for nerds, being "socially inept" is not necessarily a component of the (volitive) ethos, most of the time is pure ineptitude (a inability/disability rather than a rule against social engagement); therefore I wouldn't classify it as trait potentially subject to anathema.
I can believe the statement that some dorks (lacking the intelligence dimension) may see in not being social inept a betrayal to some values.
(apologies for my sudden relapse in pedantry, it happens from time to time)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford