[everdrive]

I think it's important to define what anonymity means with regard to cooperation. Reciprocal altruism usually requires an ongoing relationship -- ie, the two individuals will meet again, and either 1) good behavior will rewarded additional times in the future, or 2) bad behavior will be punished effectively in the future.

Large enough groups of people break this down. There's a sense in which you're anonymous in a city. The people you pass by will likely never see you again. If you treat them well, they often have no later chance to reciprocate. (unless they can reciprocate on the spot) If they "defect," you have no chance to punish them later because you don't know who they are, and have no chance seeing them again. But they're not anonymous. They're not wearing a mask, they (probably) have government ID. What they are is transient from the perspective of the individual. Someone who will never be seen again, and someone for whom you never have to develop a relationship with.

This is also key to the claims of study in the linked article -- it is the persistence of the pseudonyms which promotes more cooperative behavior. Parties are likely to build up a reputation, and that reputation carries consequences, and of course those consequences inform the behavior of someone trying to maintain the reputation.

[s1artibartfast]

>Large enough groups of people break this down.

I think an interesting addendum to that is that it doesn't necessarily break down.

If it breaks down or not depends on cultural values and individual philosophy.

Ideas like Kantian ethics, karma, honor, or religion can all act as a counter balance.

Sometimes I think that the cultural spread of hedonistic utilitarianism is eroding cooperation. People know just enough game theory to justify bad behavior.

[wolverine876]

The theory breaks down immediately when we look at the evidence. Reality is not some Hobbesian (Randian?) struggle.

People do all sorts of good, even wonderful, extraordinary things for complete strangers they will never meet. Soldiers give lives; activists, scientists, etc. give careers. Just look at FOSS. People follow laws, are kind to strangers and especially vulnerable people like random elderly and children. In large cities, where by the Hobbesian/Randian theory we'd expect worse behavior, I often see the best behavior toward strangers. We are gregarious creatures going back to our primate ancestors, and all human cultures value morality, fairness, etc.

Humans do it personally; they do it on grand scales - entire religions, bodies of law (human rights, welfare), etc. etc.

> People know just enough game theory to justify bad behavior.

Indeed. People do have good and bad in them. What an absurdity to pick out the bad, say that's all there is, and argue for it. Why would you choose the negative outcome when you could as easily choose the positive? Do they feel smarter than thou? Lol.

Treating people like crap makes you feel like crap. Just do something nice.

[s1artibartfast]

>Treating people like crap makes you feel like crap. Just do something nice.

Although in general I agree, I think this might be another example of culturally implicit happiness utilitarianism slipping in.

As an anti-hedonist, I feel compelled to point out that goal doesn't even have to be about maximizing happiness!

People can and do choose to do things that are hard or painful, even in the long run, not because it feels good, but because it is the right thing to do.

I think stepping away from min-maxing happiness utilitarianism allows empathy with a broader swath of humanity, and opens up some really interesting questions.

Is it more important to be moral person or a happy person? Is it more important to promote a just society or happy society?

These goals are often related, but not always.

[wolverine876]

Yes, you are correct of course. I wasn't focusing on happiness in the philosophical utilitarian sense, just the difference between doing 'good' and 'bad', broadly. Doing good, as you say, can involve lots of hardship.

[lupire]

You're redefining "anonymous" .

Who spit on you in the street? I don't know. He's anonymous.

The person who first spoke some ancient proverb had a name, but society doesn't know it now. She's anonymous.

Approximately no one is truly technically nameless.