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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:13AM (1 child)
I wonder what the result of this study would be in a western country, especially at elite universities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:28AM
This is a very good point.
I have lived/worked for many years in China. And while I have greatly admire how friendly and caring colleagues and acquaintances can be, I am still surprised by the ease by which people you do not know well try to screw you over. Instead of a Western country, I wonder how it would be in Japan, a country where "friends" still talk polite to you and refuse to invite you over, but strangers are commonly treated with the greatest possible respect.
This cooperative message was brought to you in anonymity.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Refugee from beyond on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:28AM
Spirit of the Big Brother. $50/bottle.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:40AM
Exchanging names has always worked for me. It's how I've been so successful on the internet.
(Score: 2) by Demose on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:09PM (5 children)
I´ll give you 6 James for a Garry but you have to dispose of all my Keiths free of charge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:58PM (4 children)
No deal. I need a Bruce and a Gregory for that combo to work.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday April 27 2017, @01:02PM (3 children)
I'll see his Bruce and Gregory and raise him a Mustafa and a Rajit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:06PM (2 children)
A Mustafa! We've got a tough guy here!
No choice then. A Nobunaga and a Jalad or bust.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:15PM (1 child)
A Mustafa! We've got a tough guy here!
No choice then. A Nobunaga and a Jalad or bust.
What would you give me for a Darmok to go along with that Jalad?
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:44PM
Depends. Are you at Tanagra?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:15PM (17 children)
[Citation needed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @01:05PM (5 children)
Just typing [citation needed] is not cooperative at all...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 27 2017, @01:41PM (3 children)
A single counter-example is enough to demonstrate the falsity of an assertion. So...
Since Linux is an example of massive cooperation (and if you dare to deny that, you are a dork [energyvanguard.com]), there is only one ways the "self-respecting geeks don't cooperate" assertion can be true in this case, and that is:
So, Phoenix666, are you willing to demonstrate that the above is true?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 28 2017, @02:26AM (2 children)
The premise of the study was that you build trust by exchanging names and getting to know one another socially. I can't think of anything more anathema to the geek archetype than that, and such was the context of my statement.
FOSS and endeavors like Soylent are examples of geeks cooperating with each other in the wider sense of the word, but none of them know each other's real names and all of them work from their parents' basement.
We can both be right.
Washington DC delenda est.
(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
(Score: 1) by charon on Friday April 28 2017, @06:51PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:31PM
I have a macro for that[citation needed], you insensitive clod.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:37PM (10 children)
No self-respecting geek would ever cooperate with others.
[Citation needed]
Hello, my name is aristarchus, and I am a self-respecting greek. What is your name?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:45PM
I'm a geek and I'm not telling you.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:37PM (6 children)
Hi, I'm c0lo, a self-respecting geek, nice to meet you again.
What shall we be cooperating on today?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday April 27 2017, @06:06PM (5 children)
Well, I suggest we start off by agreeing to lie to a bunch of social scientists about how much our knowing each other's name makes us want to cooperate! This could be the beginning of a wonderful relationship, Louis.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 27 2017, @10:10PM (4 children)
(Gee, but it's good to be the king)
Your fantasy is my reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:00PM (3 children)
Play it again, Sam! Casablanca! Maybe this "name" thing is not all it's cracked up to be. But we will always have Paris.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:31PM (1 child)
[plays it again]
Wait, I'm not Sam. Oh, and Bogey actually just said "Play it," though "Play it, Sam..." was uttered in the movie too.
Come on, Aristarchus, you must remember this....
By the way, my name is Athanasius, and I'm a recovering 17th-century Jesuit. What part of the 12-step plan is "cooperation" again?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday April 28 2017, @12:27AM
"A sigh is just a sigh,
The fundamental things apply"
"Cooperation" is that part where you have to apologize to all those you have harmed while you were logged in as AC. The first step is to realize you are anonymous, and you have a problem.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 28 2017, @02:11AM
I'm lying (or laying) in another movie - more "worldly historical" in nature, larger cultural horizons.
It was you who advanced the "let's lie" proposition, I'm merely (and merrily) cooperating with you.
---
Righto. Here's an answer from the other movie:
(do you need a spoiler?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @12:43AM (1 child)
Fuck you. My name was not aristarchus so if we had exchanged names you wouldn't be calling yourself that. You're clearly uncooperative.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday April 28 2017, @05:55AM
Oh, dear!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:28PM
Nash was a paranoid schizophrenic and even RAND found that people cooperate most of the time when they tested it in the 50's. The theory does not work IRL unless you totally disassociate it from real consequences, the MAD policy was not named ironically
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:46PM (8 children)
Giving people your identity just enables them to mess with you and not all people are rational actors. So even less reason to enable them. Some don't have anything to loose so any interaction will make you loose too. No-gain!
In Soviet east your identity was known but it didn't change peoples opinion or drive. It just made it invisible. Making the whole situation potentially very unstable.
Xenophobia will rise when some groups think it's alright to subjugate and kill members of other groups. As for social cohesion, it's something that exists when there's trust and respect. The rest is just social negative enforcement illusion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @01:18PM (2 children)
You've identified other factors, but mostly it's the economy.
When the economy is doing well, people are more amenable to welfare programs, accepting refugees, etc etc. For example, the only way we'll see single payer in the US is if the economy starts roaring like in the 1950s. I know that's counterintuitive to most here, because if that happened, there'd be an increase in "I've got mine, fuck you" internet tough guys.
But internet tough guys don't really predict what the masses are going to do. How many people here use TwitFace on a daily basis? That's what I thought. (And I agree with y'all, imo anybody who uses TwitFace is well a twit but I'm not the masses.)
When the economy goes south, that's when partisanship, xenophobia, racism, and every other form of human tribalism you can imagine is on the rise. It's always somebody else's fault, which makes sense, because who here stopped working hard? None of us did, so none of us can possibly be at fault. Yet bad shit is happening, so it must be somebody's fault.
The only thing names have to do with it as far as I can tell is informing the subconscious who's part of the tribe and who's somebody else. If you know somebody's name, you might also know that they're a hard worker. This is something like the phenomenon of the black guy everybody who's not a racist knows and can vouch for. That black guy is part of the tribe, but all those other blacks, well I don't know, they're from Umofia and womanly (q.v. href [wikipedia.org]) and stuff, so it must be their fault.
Incidentally, the elites know this as well. They won't let us have nice things like sensible, fact-based policies and a stable, sustainable economy because if we had those things, we might start doing things that would threaten the very existence of the modern aristocracy. Instead they can easily keep us fighting amongst ourselves by crashing the stock market every now and then, like back in '08, like the other examples that came up in discussion yesterday, and again this fall.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:05PM (1 child)
I'll agree with you on the economy aspect to a certain degree. But the point is that the immigration this time has a whole lot different characteristic with a hell bent agenda on subjugation and worse. Which is part of why people change opinion in these matters regardless of economic factors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @08:24PM
Actually, not so much. Just about every wave of immigration to America has had a backlash of naysayers warning of gloom and doom if we let "those people" into "our country". The differences between now and then is a whole lot less than you apparently think.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:04PM (3 children)
The price of 'o'-s must have dropped massively, I see quite an inflation of them.
I think I'd better let my mind loooose and goooo intoooo a mindless sleep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:10PM (2 children)
Simple supply and demand. 'O' only has a 7.507% market share. Now watch out for 'E' since it's up to 12.702%.
In fact, as a cost cutting moasuro, wo'ro just gonna roplaco all 'E's with 'O's.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:11PM (1 child)
The market share [wikipedia.org] of various letters changes by author.
Also, significant shifts in usage could occur due to supply and demand, if, say, someone were to airlift in and parachute drop a large supply of vowels. Or imagine if there were suddenly a glut of or dearth of consonants. Or emojis.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:34PM
Look! We will have NO slut-shaming on SoylentNews, even if there is a glut of "o"s on the market!!
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:12PM
Giving people your identity just enables them to mess with you
The Monitor article doesn't mention whether a true full legal name enhances cooperation more than a plausible-sounding pseudonym. But the Science Advances article clarifies it:
Thus it raises the question of whether pseudonymity is enough. So if you know me as Pino, and I know you as Luina or Sean or Becca or Nethil or some other plausible name, with some plausible fictional biography behind it, further study is required as to whether that would be enough to trigger onymous cooperation without leading to identity fraud or physical assault threats.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:55PM (3 children)
So we could get more cooperation on SN if we renamed Anonymous Coward to Onymous Coward?
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:25PM
I guess more like Onymous Hero.
Let's wait and see how long it takes for this person to make him/herself known.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:36PM
We should use Onymous Guest, or OG [urbandictionary.com] for short.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @07:50PM
I am Onymandius, Coward of Cowards. Look upon my posts, ye Mighty, and despair!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:23PM (5 children)
Am I missing something? Isn't it the 'a' the prefix which inverts the meaning, so it should be "nonymous", rather than "onymous" (e.g. like atheist == !theist)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:27PM (1 child)
Anonymous comes from greek, an=without and onym=name.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @08:27AM
The more you know, thanks :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:55PM (2 children)
It depends on the first letter of the negated word (not unlike the English article):
moral - amoral
theist - atheist
but:
aerobic - anaerobic
onymous - anonymous
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:20PM
isle - aisle
droid - android
kin - anakin
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:53PM
ἀνώνυμος
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @12:06AM
I am Spartacus.