The Great Explosion By Eric Frank Russell

[Eli]

JEM, 

  I guess, when I hear your argument, I think, who cares?  There is a qualitative distinction between ostracism and coercion through violence.  I think most folks here are a lot more comfortable with behavior modification through social pressure.  The potential for this kind of 'coercion' is a necessary out come of combining individual liberty with social interaction.

[John Edward Mercier]

Laws are behavior modification through social pressure. As laws are based on social mores.
They are an extreme form of negative reinforcement based on social mores of the majority.

But my diagram was to show the need for majority ostracism to result before the negative reinforcement takes effect.

[Eli]

Bolognium.  Laws are behaviour modification through the threat of force.  They may or may not be based on the social mores of a given community.

Your diagram, showing all actors as equivalent, is interesting in that it shows that self exile and ostracism are indistinguisable.  It is not demonstrative of necessity for majority ostracism for negative reinforcement.  Not even a little as far as I can see.

[Caleb]

But my diagram was to show the need for majority ostracism to result before the negative reinforcement takes effect.

Your diagram doesn't take into consideration human psychological makeup. Humans need and seek approval. That's why I mentioned the kindly old grandfather type figure...by giving support at a time of emotional trial (when others are applying a little social pressure) he makes it more likely that his words of advice will be heeded.

[John Edward Mercier]

Threat of force would equate to negative reinforcement... at least in my world.
I guess a masochist might consider it positive reinforcement.

Laws are always based on the social mores of a community... a cannibal would consider murder acceptable, the failure to consume the flesh, criminal.

No self exile and ostracism are distinct... but a matter of perspective.
You can chose self exile, while ostracism is not your choice.

The point being that in the first diagram... no real effect occurs unless one of the two non-connected players has a special skill required by the other. As the disconnect between players is increased the effect would be more obvious.

My diagram does take into consideration human psychological make-up. It allows for the fact that once the effect of separation is felt... behavior modification occurs. We have this in real life when those that are a minority try to hide the fact.
But is that the world you want... where everyone hides in the closet afraid of the disapproval of others?

I prefer the opposite.

[Caleb]

No, that isn't the world I want. But I can't control other people.  For my part, I would only ostracize a person who does something so shocking that they make me sick to my stomach to even be around them. I could give examples, but I trust they would be distasteful on a forum like this, so use your imagination.

Your point is actually somewhat valid, and I wish that you could explain it better, so Menno and others who want to use ostracism could see it, because frankly I think it works better for people who think in pictures.

A society based on the concept of intimidation is hardly what anyone wants. On the other hand, society is based on a principle of cooperation. Those who don't intend to cooperate with others tend to self-exile themselves anyway.

[J’raxis 270145]

Laws are always based on the social mores of a community... a cannibal would consider murder acceptable, the failure to consume the flesh, criminal.

Laws are usually based on what our rulers interpret to be social mores, which is always more restrictive–authoritarian than reality, and usually about a decade or two out of date. Additionally, social mores can be coerced in one direction or another (usually more restrictive) through very minimal effort on the part of our propaganda machines—witness the constant fear being splashed across the media about terrorism and pedophiles.

[Caleb]

By remarkable coincidence I was browsing in a used book shop today, and ran across a hardbound edition of the Great Explosion. I actually had a nice chat with the owner about it. He disagrees with me, but he was pleasant. Or I should say, he agrees with me, but has decided that it isn't worth it to protest. He says he participated in CD during the Vietnam war and it ruined his life.

[John Edward Mercier]

Laws are always based on the social mores of a community... a cannibal would consider murder acceptable, the failure to consume the flesh, criminal.

Laws are usually based on what our rulers interpret to be social mores, which is always more restrictive–authoritarian than reality, and usually about a decade or two out of date. Additionally, social mores can be coerced in one direction or another (usually more restrictive) through very minimal effort on the part of our propaganda machines—witness the constant fear being splashed across the media about terrorism and pedophiles.

The interpretation of social mores is due to representative government... proxy is always less accurate.
And social mores change over time. This is why laws are not permanent, and many times not consistent.

This was Caleb's point about small groups where proxy does not exist. And its very accurate sociologically. New England town meetings were formatted under this concept. In NH, it is why we pay Legislaturors a dollar a year, and limit the length of the session... there was never an intent for the State to do what it now does.