I'm still unclear on the distinction between "canceling" and "shaming." If it's merely a matter of intent on the part of the canceler/shamer, then the distinction further blurs. Are you really sure that shamers aren't just another type of troll? Perhaps trolling does provide a positive externality in this case. A few million Larry David style social enforcers would be positive in this model, even if such people were motivated by trolling or other internalized psychological benefits.
How do you overcome the perceived first-mover problem? Every person encountering rudeness has to decide whether to act. Initially, people desiring to adhere to the new social norm will see no one else doing so. How do you get them to act, so that they become a public example to others on how to act in the face of rudeness?
Actually a pretty pathetic argument, doesn't even address the issue. I'm disappointed. The issue at hand is this: a human behavior can be changed mainly through approval of desired and disapproval of undesired. Both work. Which is proven by references to evolutionary psychology and more modern practices. There's a spectrum of increasing pressure to change the undesired behavior. Say, there's a hunter-gatherer group hunting big prey. They lose their prey because one retard can't play his role right. He's talked to, no effect. Then he's mocked and shamed. If no effect he's then beaten up, shunned or killed, end of story. Next time the group kills the prey, not only because there's no retard to fail a role in a group, but because the rest get the message -- comply to what works best at hunting down the prey.
Later we can just agree to call it 'consequences' and then deny that shaming is a thing.
I'm still unclear on the distinction between "canceling" and "shaming." If it's merely a matter of intent on the part of the canceler/shamer, then the distinction further blurs. Are you really sure that shamers aren't just another type of troll? Perhaps trolling does provide a positive externality in this case. A few million Larry David style social enforcers would be positive in this model, even if such people were motivated by trolling or other internalized psychological benefits.
How do you overcome the perceived first-mover problem? Every person encountering rudeness has to decide whether to act. Initially, people desiring to adhere to the new social norm will see no one else doing so. How do you get them to act, so that they become a public example to others on how to act in the face of rudeness?
Actually a pretty pathetic argument, doesn't even address the issue. I'm disappointed. The issue at hand is this: a human behavior can be changed mainly through approval of desired and disapproval of undesired. Both work. Which is proven by references to evolutionary psychology and more modern practices. There's a spectrum of increasing pressure to change the undesired behavior. Say, there's a hunter-gatherer group hunting big prey. They lose their prey because one retard can't play his role right. He's talked to, no effect. Then he's mocked and shamed. If no effect he's then beaten up, shunned or killed, end of story. Next time the group kills the prey, not only because there's no retard to fail a role in a group, but because the rest get the message -- comply to what works best at hunting down the prey.