Session 4 Readings

The reading from Rheingold
"Threat of punishment can constrain, but it can't inspire (pg. 37)."

How does the Tragedy of the Commons explain when people choose not to put their own need before others even when there is no proscribed consequence by the group? In other words, when it comes from a true understanding of the greater good, what causes the presence or absence of that understanding? The theories dismiss every case of altruism as a means of reputation building. But, I don’t believe that. I don't mean people who are indoctrinated into religions that instill certain principles that people are afraid to break away from. We know historically that this was the means for controlling the masses and solving the problem of the “Tragedy” but I don’t think we can dismiss the question on that level either. I mean when someone consistently makes choices based on a sense of the greater good and remains content with what they have. And what about when people sacrifice themselves for others with only an instant to make the choice? I just saw a story on CNN last night about a kid in Chicago who pulled his friend out of the line of fire and died saving her. How is that accounted for in the Tragedy of the Commons? I think when people understand that hurting others IS hurting themselves, they make different choices, but what allows one person to realize it and another person not to. I guess I am one of those people who believe in the inherent good in people. I think people don't make choices to hurt other people if they really understand the harm they are doing. I think sometimes people lie to themselves and justify poor choices by putting differing values on people so that the lower the value, the less they relate to the person or group of people as part of them and understand the harm they are doing to them. If a person can rationalize a harmful choice in their own mind then they can do it. But, if there was a magic wand that stripped away that rationalization and the person really understood what they were doing then they would not and could not make the choice to do harm. I believe this is the key to understanding behavior. What creates these justifications in people's minds that keeps them from feeling the true weight of their choices and the true inherent value in each and every other being (and consequently, the collective or ‘greater good’) on the planet?

_______________________________________________________________________________
The Internet can act as a catalyst for a dormant personality trait, it can reverse an active trait, or it can perpetuate an active trait. It's a valid study to try to determine what set of conditions causes a social or anti-social person to become more or less social when using the Internet. The title of one of our readings used the term ‘paradox’, which, subtly implies that it is correct to assume one way or another whether or not the Internet is inherently a social tool because it is 'connection' to others. If you believe that sitting in front of a computer instead of another person is anti-social you'll cite examples of ways it reduces sociability, if you believe that connecting to everyone whether electronically or in person is inherently social, then you'll cite examples of ways it improves sociability. I think the next logical study would be to investigate what frames our perception of the Internet as inherently social or anti-social. What causes an individual to put more value on a direct sensory experience of the other person versus reading a less inhibited product of the other person’s mind on a screen? Is it experience or do we begin with a bias. Is it based on our social circles, income, school experiences, family culture, biology, or something else entirely?
I also wonder how an individual’s ability to adapt to change affects his/her feelings about Internet use? The Internet is relatively new and changing every day - does a person who resists change feel more negatively about the Internet than a person who is highly adaptable and welcomes change?