The Free Rider Problem

Let's bring last night's post around to D&D and role-playing.

The title of the post refers to a social science phenomenon that occurs when those who benefit from resources don't pay for them, which results in an underdivision of those resources.  The obvious example would be the player that participates in your game, or that you're apt to meet at a game con, who sucks most of the benefit provided by the other players into his or her orbit, contributing very little.  Viewed in that light, the free-rider problem becomes evident.  How do you purport to stand for the free and egalitarian rights of all individuals, when some individuals are so obviously selfish and non-productive?  Worse, free-riders encourage the practice of free-riding, in that when a crowd watches others get away with it, without consequence, there is a sense that we might just as well free-ride also.

The free-rider problem has posed a problem for human group dynamics in an evolutionary sense, as detailed in this video featuring Jonathan Haidt:



As he explains (12:20), cooperating organisms interact with each other, producing value, or "wealth."  The free rider, on the other hand, gains wealth at the cooperator's expense, so that cooperators are depleted while free riders are able to proliferate.  As Haidt describes the problem, "Free riders doom cooperation, because cooperators will be suckers and so the gene for cooperation can evolve."

If this sounds familiar, don't be surprised.  Haidt does not state an internet connection but I'm sure he's aware of it, as the reader cannot help but be.  The internet adaptation has been the process of empowering free riders at the expense of cooperators, because it is far, far harder to cooperate on the internet than it is to exploit it.

Where the organization of control on the internet is at its weakest, the free rider syndrome is at its worst.  4Chan, Twitter, Reddit ... places where moderation is a minimum, or where the moderators just don't care about group dynamics or cooperation.  As such, the dialogue on these sources is all exploitation, as exploiters vye with each other for the resource of recognition and, I assume, some kind of pleasure.

Since the mid-1970s, Haidt explains, this selfishness model has driven theories about human cultural evolution that suggest we are all naturally self-motivated, interested exploiters and so on, and that group dynamics organize themselves around intergroup competition.  This sounds a great deal like the atmosphere we've all experienced on bulletin boards and at game tables ~ once again, particularly at game cons.

However ... since the 1970s, various scholars have been re-examining human evolution and there is a growing sentiment rising that, in fact, cooperators do not act like individual units, but in fact bond with each other and then build frameworks that keep out free riders.  This is Richerson and Boyd's 2005 Tribal Instincts hypothesis (quoting from the video):

"Such environments favored the evolution of a suite of new social instincts suited to life in such groups, including a psychology which 'expects' life to be structured by moral norms and is designed to learn and internalize such norms; new emotions such as shame and guilt, which increase the chance that the norms are followed, and a psychology which 'expects' the social world to be divided into symbolically marked groups."

I found Haidt's lecture after making a comment to Tedankhamen, where I argued that dogpiling on Zak isn't "tribalism," it's human.  I was wrong about that.  And yes, I often go look things up after I make comments, to feel sure that I was right.  When I'm wrong, that becomes a post.

It is tribalism.  But that's not a bad thing, that's a good thing.  As a tribe, we're hyper-aware of free riders, who are their to exploit our efforts and our good times.  When we become aware that someone is a free-rider, because they are exposed to have the characteristics of free riders, and NOT the characteristics we expect, the social instinct it to ostracize that free rider immediately, without remorse, before it can make use of any more of our resources.

I put it to the reader, and in particular Tedankhamen, than we are not "rushing to take sides."  We're revealing something about ourselves as human beings.  Those "rushing" to dogpile on Zak and push him out of the community are those who believe there IS a community, who see the value and wealth of the community as being more important for the general welfare than risking any more resources falling into that hands of a free rider.  Those "rushing" to take Zak's side, or defend Zak's possible innocence, or otherwise find reasons why this might be a witch hunt, are those who don't care about the community except as a loose collection of competitors, where moral norms, shame, guilt and social responsibility aren't as important as MY freedom to act as I wish in a FREE zone of discussion.

Speaking as someone who was more ostracized by the community once than I am now, who is now often surprised to see people who "hated" me once now include me on their blog rolls (though of course, some never will), I'm going to say it clearly that the community as a whole is more important than I am.  That doesn't mean that I agree with the community, or its motivation, or its dogmatic appeal to the approval of the company.  But it does mean that I believe there is fundamental value in socially selecting the community to reward being able to follow the rules.  I believe that autodomestication of the general community population is necessary if the community is going to survive, and act as a force that influences further belief and activity in role-playing games, not only among ourselves but among those people who will come into the community in the future, even in the far-flung future, ten or twenty or fifty years from now.

We, including myself, who self-stated my desire to autodomesticate myself and my behaviour about three years ago, have an agenda to select those people in the future who will be allowed to participate in this community.  Sometimes, that selection is going to be "unfair."  Some of us, including myself, risk our ostracization by making the statements that we make, and standing up for the things we believe.  That is something that every opinionated person has to recognize ... and it is certainly a thing that many opinionated persons fail to respect, and justifiably fear, as they start flame war after flame war, or fail to be authentic, or fail to act in good conscience regarding the wellbeing of others.

I take my chances.  I know the risks.  But I also believe that posts like this one, where I state clearly what I believe, and why, and based on principles that we are all subject to, permits me the privilege of slipping off the chain occasionally.  I hate things.  I hate those things because I consider them disingenous, or exploitive, or deliberately supporting ignorant, damaging policies or ideologies that I think are hurting people's ability to find the best in themselves.  When I see those things, I react.  And I believe, as a writer, I can make it clear enough why I'm reacting, and why I'm angry, and why the reader should be angry too.

Free riders betray themselves when their anger is all "woe is me" and "I'm innocent" and "I just want another chance."  It raises the hackles of anyone who views community as more valuable than the individual's right to break the rules, and the distaste that follows doesn't need a trial.  It doesn't need an excuse.  It's visceral, just as I said.

When I'm angry at something, let's just take it for granted that I'm starting from a position of "Fuck Alexis and Fuck Alexis' needs."  I didn't give noisms crap a couple of weeks ago about "you do you" for my sake.  I'm not threatened by that shit.  And when I start out to kick the blighter in the balls, I'm definitely not innocent.  I'm an asshole. I'll be the first person to say so.  And I'm not asking for a chance to be heard.  I'll make my own chances, thank you.  I'm not angry for me.

I'm angry because that bullshit is toxic and destructive.  Me, I'm immune to it.  If I were only interested in my doing me, I wouldn't have looked up hive psychology and I wouldn't have spent time watching the video and half my morning writing this post.  But a lot of others aren't immune to it.  They don't have an argument against "you do you" and they don't have an argument for why they're justified in kicking Zak out of the gaming community.

But they do now.

phew.

Sorry.  I try.  I really try.  But it always comes back to this: