Does this actively remove said toxicity? Or is it rather proper community management and respective banning of people harassing others, hence actively doing what you’re supposed to do as a operator of a online product in the first place?
If someone wants to be malevolent then a filter won’t stop them to do that unless it’s extremely and unbearably strict. That’s definitely not the goal though. The option it to remove the malevolent person after showing that malevolence. As mentioned… harassment has to be done with intent, and that’s important to take into account. They want to cause a problem, it’s not a sad side-effect which happened by surprise, it is after all intentional.
And to reduce conflict from impulsive actions… doesn’t a simple filter suffice which stops them from flinging a slur or offensive term out once? After all they can easily circumvent it even in the current state, so the full prevention can’t be the task of the filter anyway.
Yes? We’re not employees though but customers?
Obviously employees are not allowed to say specific things? They nonetheless can but will face the consequences for doing so, which is likely to be fired, worst-case being put to trial for maliciously damaging the companies reputation.
You’re getting paid to do something in a specific way after all… that’s literally your task description there
Yes, because since several years those core principles are getting further and further perverted in many western countries sadly.
There’s even been a worrying release of statistical analysis on how freely press is able to provide information, which has reduced over time substantially.
And free press is a very substantial aspect of a society I would say, and it’s not the only point which is negatively affected.
Societal the western world is regressing a lot in some aspects. Sure, we’re making vast strides in other things but in terms of freedom of expression or action we’re actively moving away from it in surprisingly vast strides nowadays.
It does prevent it to some measure (we don’t have enough data to know how many offensive sentences were blocked and actively prevented the person from being offensive). Which means the chat environment is a bit less toxic. Which means that mods don’t have their hands full (or just do what GGG does which is not care at all about it and let everyone say all the s*** they want).
Although, as I mentioned and you ignored, the amount of false positives is actually quite small. Almost all my messages go through. Only a very very small portion gets filtered and those I can usually work around.
So why would a small inconvenience once in a while be enough reason to tear down a system that has clear advantages and that can further be improved to make those inconveniences even rarer?
Are they, though? The core principles of western civilization have been capitalism above everything else for more than 100 years. This is just its logical progression.
Which though sadly doesn’t stand in direct causation to individuals or even situations avoided from harassing someone. It solely changes how the overall ‘looks’ of the chat are. Also EHG is decent in removing people from abusing the chat.
Actually GGG is as well, they were for a few years overwhelmed though with it, which has changes since a while now. Still not good in any way but at least better then before.
I would argue that it’s nonetheless the direct human intervention which causes the highest effect by far. In comparison false positives are in 100% of the cases a nuisance and should be weighted heavier.
It’s like being wrongly imprisoned, you don’t say ‘only 5% of people are wrongfully imprisoned’, that’s a miniscule amount compared to rightful actions after all, but still… 5% of people have been wrongfully treated. Those things are to be avoided as well as possible. Obviously a bit of a extreme example but I didn’t find a better one to explain the core of the issue I see with it.
First of all as you said, we don’t know how much actual effect it has.
The only visible effect is that less quite clearly offensive terms and curse words are used, which makes the overall language being used seem less offensive overall.
Does it have a direct impact on the actual meaningful things like harassment over private messages? My personal suspicion is ‘no’ and best case we can solely say ‘we don’t know’.
Yes, they are.
If we look at historical changes then there’s several core aspects which have been basically demolished over time.
The first is that the industrialization led to a reduction in work-time to the ~40 hour week in a majority of the world because we got more productive and needed less people at the same time. This caused a massive improvement of society as it reduced the unemployment rate drastically while at the same time improving the amount of sales and the living standard of everyone more or less equally. Since then production rate as risen by 5 times per worker but work hours have not reduced at all.
This has led to a overabundance of job-seekers and basically ‘forgery’ of statistics of unemployment rates from governments since decades now. Around 100 years ago every single person at the ‘working age’ was taken into consideration. Nowadays everyone who’s sick, in education, unable to work and so on is taken out of that, nonetheless the unemployment rate has risen… seems like an issue to me I would say, meaning the actual rate is vastly higher then before.
This obviously leads to people leaning more into poverty and a inhibited flow of goods and money which is bad for both individuals and companies. Can’t sell products if nobody can afford em, which causes severely higher competition then it should be and hence cut-throat work environments based on competition between colleagues even to sustain the job since layoffs are common. That’s a problem.
Freedom of press has reduced itself over time because of ever increasing amounts of reporters being imprisoned, not everyone has inherent high integrity or can afford to have it as they got familiar responsibilities which obviously are held in higher value then those towards society for them. Not to speak of threats having become ever more prevalent since the internet is being used by more and more people, the anonymity not being a upside but a detriment there, which is why I’m saying we as individuals need to be held accountable for our actions and hence world-wide companies need to have the ability to relay forward our personal information to authorities if a breach of law is found. That isn’t happening though, major issue.
Also freedom of expression has been heavily under attack over the last years, especially in the humor segment that can be seen. There’s a reason why in medieval times you looked at the behavior of a jester to see if the lands were ruled by a good king or a tyrant. Being prosecuted for making jokes, no matter how ‘unfitting’, ‘dark’ or whatever else is a major major issue. Humor is supposed to be offensive towards something. In my country 2 decades ago it was the norm that politicians were ridiculously caricaturized, extremely so, being depicted by entertainers as utterly incompetent, nonsensical and insane when they did they smallest things wrong. Now? That’s vastly reduced in magnitude, it was ‘offensive’ despite existing for over 100 years and being well-mannered, nobody took it serious.
Infringing upon humor is the first sign of systemic tyranny towards citizens, it’s a major red flag throughout history and upholds to date.
And lets not start with how education hasn’t been improved in many aspects but instead worsened on quite a lot of countries, upholding standards from 80 years ago which were set by the needs of a working society which needed a lot of automation workers and not fitting to a fast-paced creative and innovative modern society as we currently need people for.
So yes, they were either stagnated or outright are moving backwards. It’s not without reason why living standards in many western societies are not rising but falling since quite a while now with people being less and less able to afford daily living. Those things are all interconnected, much like countries nowadays are much more then one would like to think.
Idk where you live, but I’m glad that I don’t live there. It’s not that I won’t rape, murder, or steal because I fear the consequences. I won’t rape, murder, or steal because I’m not a fucked up human being who violates other people
What’s upholding the behavior of citizens? The law? Yeah… to a degree, but that’s not actually right. There’s after all ‘unwritten laws’ in society.
So what is it that upholds order in a society?
The risk of punishments, of being ostracized, of loosing the ability to sustain yourself and having any company.
That’s all that’s holding someone back from becoming a psychopath basically, because it would be detrimental for us to act in such a way as humans are weak individually but strong as a group. It was needed back in the times when we were gatherer/hunters and it’s nowadays still needed, which is why cliques of small groups of friends exist, strength in numbers and companionship.
We’re fairly simple animals if you break it down to the basis And society is a fairly simple construct at the basis. The only reason it’s complex is because humans were never meant to live in such large groups and we’re desperately trying to adjust to that while our brains are still gradually advancing from being in the stone age. Evolution needs many many generations after all, it’s a slow slow process.
That is because AI hasn’t been around long enough to be tested against that. All you had were systems that, by design, aren’t flexible enough. So for those, human moderation remains better.
But AI has exploded these last few years and it is now in a position where it can provide a better system. One just has to fine tune it, which is a work in progress.
That seems like a very positive effect already. If that was all it did, I’d say it’s already worth the minor inconvenience of having to rephrase 1 sentence in 100.
Considering that the same filter applies to both global and personal chat, I’d say the effect is similar.
This is simply a side effect, not a cause.
I’m going to condense your answer:
Capitalism’s base premise has always been profit. All that matters is profit.
Which is why companies pay the lowest they can get away with. And sell for the highest they can get away with.
Which is why you get conglomerates, cartels, monopolies, etc.
For over 100 years, capitalism has been the most basic premise of western civilization.
There are some movements to minimize this, which is why you get minimum wage laws, safety regulations, etc. But all major policies over the last 100 years have all been leading to profit for companies and for wealthy individuals.
The only difference is that now we’re reaching a huge extreme in this and it’s starting to break. Closed systems are inherently entropic and require either a reboot regularly or a change of system. And capitalism is simply reaching a breaking point. And it will only get worse before it explodes.
Dude, I mean this with the best intentions, you need therapy.
If all that’s stopping you from killing other people is the fear of being ostracized or the law you REALLY need to get some help.
Edit: You bring up us being simple animals and outside of animals killing the children of their rivals, there’s not much inner-species “killing each other willy nilly” in the animal kingdom. And even the killing of the rivals children has a basis in wanting to pass their genes on, so that’s not even “willy nilly”.
I promise you that lions don’t have laws and they’re not out there murdering each other in cold blood without them
We’ve had this discussion around “conversations between friends”, but that’s where individuals typically try to go for some of the most vitriolic comments.
Apologies, but why should the game, or any other platform, tell us how me and my friend should talk to each other IN PRIVATE?
In offering online communication, we have an obligation
I am fully aware that you shouldn’t allow the game’s chat to become a toxic pool of bullying, harassment and illegal content sharing platform, but at the moment it’s just ridiculous.
The chat system should not be this slow, and it sounds like this may actually be a network communication issue rather than the filter.
No, my ping is around 35ms, it shouldnt be the network.
the chat system is based on the language you’re set to
Not true again. The game is in English, but if I write some nasty stuff to my friend (or literally some random words in my language in Cyrillic) the game filters the message???
Not yet, give it a few years, we’re not far off though, you’re right with that.
Not yet though.
Absolutely not.
In global chat people act impulsive first and foremost, the urge to engage there is far lower then in individual conversation.
Harassment is also targeted, you have a surprisingly small number of people lashing out in public… but you got a vastly higher number of people behaving maliciously in private, or imaginative privacy like a PM. That’s why it was stated above that PMs are the main problem area for harassment after all, that’s the reason. Less inhibitions.
Profit without efficient workers is a short-term situation only.
A common situation 30 years ago was that a boss looked after his workers or the company would struggle. A good superior has respect towards their employees and hence the employees provide loyalty to the company.
If this would’ve been upheld by increasing pay according to inflation, reducing work-times according to productivity increase and hence keeping job security high we wouldn’t even be in this situation. But we are.
And that’s not an aspect of capitalism.
Capitalism is to get the highest amount of money out of your endeavor, by design, you’re absolutely right! But as we see it’s nearing a breaking point since more and more people are missing to sustain key aspects of letting this system function, which is that you need buyers for your items, and since nobody can afford the expensive stuff - like houses for example - those get artificially inflated via scamming the system and solely focusing on investors (which get harsh awakenings left and right this way as it comes to light) and hence undermining the whole system leading to each and every one loosing out.
The rich are just the last which loose, but they also loose in the end.
But you’re right, it’s at a breaking point and will likely get worse for another 10 years at least.
First of all there’s pack animals and then there’s territorial animals. We’re pack animals. That means close-knit groups. Territorial animals do kill each other, and it happens quite regularly, it’s after all a competition, usually for resources or for reproduction.
Read up on what a psychopath is and how their brains differ from a neurotypical person and you’ll see the differences and why society works as it works.
We are the way we are because it provided the highest survival chances, nothing more and nothing less. While we have removed natural selection for terms of resources to a large degree we still have social based natural selection ongoing. Hence our behavior is reproduction driven mostly.
Which only underlines my statement that we also have those ‘unspoken rules’. Not to speak that we don’t kill our males when they get old like lions do
Humans treasure elders because they not many generations ago they were generally there to take care of kids while you’re out providing for your family in one way or another as well as providing knowledge to the next generation.
Lions in comparison don’t inherit much knowledge and only teach the basic situational hunting skills for the respective area, which is why the elder male which has no ‘use’ anymore is driven out to starve or killed, he has no ‘function’ as he’s not providing anything to the pack anymore.
Humans provide at any age to the pack, otherwise chances are high that we would do similar things to non-providing individuals.
Welcome to the world, we’re simple, there’s relatively simple reasons as to why we are how we are, it’s just hard to discern how it came to be without in-depth knowledge about evolution and societal setup over times (hence history) and we solely make it more complex to handle increasing complexity as we get ever tighter knit together… and plainly spoken barely scramble along to function, but we do… which is good enough as nothing else is in direct conflict with our resources.
I don’t think you’ve been keeping up with this. AI is already replacing entire call centers and other forms of customer support. We’re very much already there.
On our software we’re implementing an AI feature that lets users ask questions in natural language and it translates to SQL queries and presents the results. It took a single programmer (he’s using this as his masters’ thesis) a few months to have a very reliable model.
It’s no longer that hard to adapt AI for most of these things. And you can expect many more jobs to start disappearing very soon because of this.
Yes, but that is the reasoning in an unfiltered chat that has human moderation. When you use PMs you’re not being moderated (or you have that perception anyway) so there are no rules.
But if you have a filter that censors out a lot of toxic speech, then it also discourages you from doing that, because you have to try to work around it. No troll wants to spend 5 minutes rephrasing an insult until it finally goes through.
You’re wrong in that assumption. Capitalism’s goal is to get the highest amount of money. Period. Workers are a nuisance. If you can get a machine to reliably do the same thing a worker does, companies will do that.
Just look at amazon shops that don’t have any employees. Or express registers in supermarkets.
If a company can get away with not having employees and it’s profitable, they will do that. That is the obvious progression of capitalism.
I feel like you watched The Purge and thought it was a documentary. But I’m glad I don’t live in a world/society where everyone isn’t a psychopath because of a law and instead because most people don’t want to murder other humans
Completely out of line example, as is the implication of the phrase ‘throwing under the bus’. Like comparing the death penality with giving a warning for speeding when the radar was badly calibrated.
I assume an existing correlation between the public and private vitriol. There is no reason to believe that there is not a similar effect on private chat.
Many (not all) people will probably give up trying to insult the other person if two or three attempts were blocked.
Humour is supposed to face a serious or annoying thing or happenstance with a light-hearted spirit. It is not about being inherently offensive towards something or someone just for the sake of it. It releases stress. Do not equal mockery with humour.
The thing about mocking public people in power is that they are in power, like politicians. Political cabaret fought upwards, usually. It’s not only comedy, but social critique.
What I often see nowadays is ‘comedians’ kicking down. The jokes they make are designed to laugh about someone, not with someone. And it is okay to be pissed and being vocal about this. Freedom of opinion and all. If you’re an arse under the guise of a comedian, prepare yourself to get some fire yourself.
The risk of punishment works only up to a degree and is quite complex. The likelihood of being caught and punished has a greater effect than the seriousness of the punishment, for example, as many studies have shown.
That’s why the perceived anonymity of the internet often leads to such a toxic environment.
I assume that without a major shift in social policies and how we distribute wealth, our society as we know it will collapse in a violent outburst. Something with guillotines, I am afraid.
If our participation in wealth is solely dependent on our productivity, then we need to make sure that all people can get a job. But we remove more and more opportunities to have a job for the masses. This time, we don’t have a substantial shift towards other new jobs.
The goal of modern capitalistic companies is to reduce the costly human work force as much as possible and to make as much profit as possible, benefitting solely those who own the companies (shareholders).
I think we need a substantial taxation for companies that generate considerable profits while having a relatively low number of people working for them.
I’m really not & if you think that " someone who can’t take a single sentence without breaking down" isn’t victim blaming, then you’re part of the problem.
As an accountant, yeah. And it’s been happening for a while. Automated production lines are more efficient so companies use them, if they weren’t, companies would have more employees to make stuff (still probably in production line’s 'cause that’s more efficient, whether you use people or machines).
Yeah, and they SUCK But it’s better then former tries at least.
As said, give it… 1-2 years and we’re likely there, 5 years and we’ll likely have outpaced the quality of what a human can usually reliably provide in many areas. Depending if the AI doesn’t gets input from former AI outcomes, which can cause massively detrimental effects, in help with coding we can see that happening a lot already, but I’m sure they’re be adequate countermeasures taken.
It’s mostly the inhibition there, I know where you wanna go with it but it doesn’t uphold that well there sadly.
After all the major worries are about harassment, defamation and similar things, outright bullying for example.
Those are done with intent, a filter doesn’t stop that as the limitation for being ostracized are vastly lowered since ‘nobody else is there to see it’. Obviously a fallacy since the devs can access those logs easily but still, that’s the direct perception.
This leads to it having - in comparison - minimal effects. Sure, it’ll have effects but not as much as we would like at all.
A troll is not a bully, a troll is ‘pranking’ people, or subverting expectations. It’s benign behavior, but easily goes over the limit nonetheless. Actual trolls (and not what people sometimes use the term for in the meanwhile) are a non-issue.
First of all, not quite. You get the highest amount of money, yes… but the issue with that is that big companies are beholden to investors, investors get quarterly reports, those need to rise, hence the incentive for companies is to push those numbers up even if long-term it’ll be detrimental.
Without this system we wouldn’t see the current outcome happening. You’re 100% right that a worker itself is a nuisance, but not because of being a worker but because a worker is unreliable compared to a machine. If you can’t use a machine though you would want to pay the worker accordingly to keep morale and work quality up as well as be given loyalty… because that makes the worker more reliable and hence give better results. And a long-term worker which isn’t incompetent is a boon for a company.
If you can automate it though? Well… then that worker obviously is ‘useless’. Which is the reason why you reduce work hours to ensure your workers aren’t stressed out and in direct competition with each other all the time.
That needs to be a general thing though, if too many bad actors - as currently is the case - are on the market then the system collapses immediately. Otherwise capitalism is fantastic since it would ensure that workers get adequate pay to then circulate back to the company which provides a stable environment for long-term growth. And especially in R&D stress-free environment directly correlates with heightened results as stress is the death of creativity.
You’re entirely missing the point of my argumentation line, just saying.
Major misconception.
‘Throwing under the bus’ is a idiomatic phrase to blame or abandon a person for selfish reasons commonly, which upholds. You abandon the people’s right for free expression and you blame them for not upholding this by saying that otherwise someone else will suffer, without going into detail for the actual amount of people that are affected on either side.
Which makes it offensive towards those things commonly. Dark humor is by design offensive, often in terms of causing disgust at the thought of it. A good example (since I watched it a short while ago) is the depiction in the series ‘The gentlemen’ of mocking nobility there by having dark secrets through the bank and doing ‘odd’ things hence. Like the father of one family dies and he has to be buried with the coffin standing upright and his corpse staring at the estate. Which is bizarre but was presented in a really humoristic way.
Or caricature, actively making fun of someone or something by pushing a concept to the extreme. In my country we had for example 2 parties where one was mocked to always follow along when the other said something. It was depicted as the leading person of the ‘direction giving party’ leading the other leading person along on a leash like a dog as he urinates at a lamp post. Definitely offensive, without question, but humorous.
Mockery itself can be a form of humor, a caricature after all is a form of mockery… but with a distinct critical aspect behind it as you’ve said, which makes it into humor because it has the ‘spark of truth’ inside. Without that it would just be defamatory and not humorous.
Making fun of stereotypes, classic ‘blonde’ humor, ‘yo momma’ jokes or racial jokes and the likes fall into that category. Definitely offensive towards everyone in the category!
The point is that ‘humor has no limits’, the issue you describe with ‘kicking down’ can be down to everybody and by anyone. It’s a attack on someone and simple mockery without the ‘spark of truth’ inside of it then obviously you’re getting roasted in return… because you deserve it. That’s not humorous after all, it’s just offensive.
Exactly, well described.
Likely not guillotines… we should rather bring them back then what people would do nowadays with modern technology. Not a nice thought overall.
It already happened with the industrial revolution, since that moment we started to loose extremely repetitive jobs which people with a low IQ are prime candidates for to fill.
The more we’ve automated and advanced technology the higher the minimum IQ need for a job got and the more the competitive environment for normal IQ ranges went up. By now even people beyond the average IQ are in severe competition to get ‘a’ job of some kind, hence since those are filled ever more people are unhappy in their environment since they do jobs which are unfitting for their respective mental capacity.
There’s a reason why the minimum ASVAB score of the US Army needs to be 31… which roughly relates to a IQ of 92. It was deemed that ‘there is not a single possible position which can be taken up by someone below this score’ after all.
That’s 30% of the world population considered ‘not smart enough to do any possible job in the US army’.
That’s a McDonalds burger fryer job as the lowest one.
So, what should anyone below that score do? Well… there’s not really anything left anymore.
We need a overall taxation based on pre-investment and R&D costs rather then post one first of all. To avoid companies (or individuals) reducing their taxation by circulating money and nonetheless letting it work for them in a positive manner.
Secondly we need guaranteed basic accommodations for people, meaning a single room flat + food + electricity + heating + internet + phone + healthcare + transportation for the job being paid.
Then we need adjustments of income accordingly, each cent we get from work should be for savings, entertainment and enhancing life quality, not for sustaining existence nowadays. This allows companies to pay less while being a direct motivation for workers. You ‘only’ get 800€ now instead of 1400€? Well, who cares if those 800 are actually what you get rather then leaving with 200-400 at the end of the month?
Then taxation needs to be adjusted accordingly to tax they respective freed up money to sustain this system in the first place.
Obviously this means a large portion of housing setups need to be handled via the government to provide those homes in the first place, with 2 room setups for relationships and 3+ rooms for families. This ensures that relevant space is provided and upgrades will need to be privately bought. But streamlining such expenses reduces costs substantially and causes things to be vastly more affordable anyway, sustaining such a system.
Sadly the majority of governmental constructs are overburdened with slow acting overfilled positions where nobody cares about anything happening as they get money either way. Governments need to provide work incentives for efficiency… or automate those systems.
All a major effort and nothing we’ll see in the next 10 years sadly, when it would be absolutely mandatory to have anything of those sorts handled already though, at the latest.
Are you denying that people exist which are emotionally fragile enough to not be able to sustain any criticism at all?
Are you denying that without the hyperbole of my sentence there’s a good chunk of people which have a very low tolerance rate for handling any form of conflict?
Are those hence automatically ‘victims’?
If you think so then you’re part of the problem, I’ll turn that right back to you in that case.
Having an emotional breakdown makes you not automatically a victim of harassment, having low capacity for conflict neither makes you automatically a victim. Are you to blame for it? Generally no, but there’s situations which it turns into ‘yes’.
Like: ‘I know I can’t handle any sort of conflict since my mind doesn’t allow it and despite putting effort into that and showing no results I’ll nonetheless go into this environment where I’ll with near 100% guarantee get into ‘some’ form of conflict if I decide to engage with it’… then obviously ‘yes’, they’re at fault.
You’re not automatically excused for things happening and you’re also not automatically at fault for things happening.
There’s nuance.
Removing accountability from people for their own actions and victimizing them is not only dangerous but also an awful thing to do as it takes away any form of authority over their own actions.
Again, you’re wrong in your assumptions. Weekly work hour limits were something imposed from outside capitalism. Companies don’t care how long you work for. They only care about profit per hour.
A machine might not be as reliable as a worker, but if it produces more money per time unit, a company will use a machine instead.
Much like a company’s products only have as much quality as needed to maximize profit. Lots of products could easily have higher quality, but that would increase production costs. So they do the most cheap job they can get away with and still profit.
Capitalism really only cares about profit, nothing else. Everything they are forced to do in favour of worker conditions, product safety, etc, is mandated from outside.
It was done by Henry Ford because it was the best way to get workers to his company as competition wasn’t providing it.
This was because there were too little workers for too much to do. Otherwise it wouldn’t have worked.
To uphold this status quo governments would’ve needed to managed the motivation of workers and how much they’re willing to put effort into their work-life, which was forgone though, nobody had that thought for a long time as people thought it would just go on forever like that.
It’s the opposite, a machine is more reliable then a worker in general. Well… depending on the job at least, and with AI we’ll see them becoming more reliable then humans in the majority of workspaces.
Especially highly logical places like STEM and IT… it’s kinda ironic that people working on AI basically work on making themselves obsolete.
If those extremely high paying jobs don’t exist anymore… which are left afterwards?
And when I said that I, in fact, would not go around murdering people even without consequences because I’m not a fucked up human being. You said:
Which clearly says that without the social and legal repercussions you’d be out there just murdering people because there’s no consequences. To which, I again say: “you need therapy” because that’s some fucked up thinking
Well? Why not is the question now is it? Nothing is ‘inherent’ after all, where does it come from?
Have you thought about that?
Also quite simple. The person next to you is a potential friend, a potential partner, which means doing something bad to them would cause you to loose the ability to form a connection. Since humans generally - with very very very few exceptions - need social connections or die literally die over extended timeframes this is a matter of survival.
Also without a partner you wouldn’t be able to procreate, which is another major thriving force for humanity after all.
Just because you personally might not do it doesn’t mean your Amygdala doesn’t want it because your brain is designed for it. Well… to be fair the insula and ventromedial prefrontal cortex are also affected for those matters.
You’re naturally built to uphold the safety of the pack, hence when you see someone else in distress, be it physical or emotional… you’ll generally go and help, which is a bit of a suppressed part the denser populated an area is as you avoid to take on this responsibility and give it over to others. Which is why sometimes people in highly populated areas get help relatively late.
The other is connecting your actions with consequences. This means combined with the above mentioned part is what causes ‘empathy’ to happen. You realize what a consequence of your action would be, hence you don’t do it since it would cause distress to someone and since you’re literally wired to help people out so your ‘pack’ doesn’t die out you won’t do it.
Hence, have a lack of reaction to people in distress as well as a lack of connecting consequences to actions (low empathy, high impulsivity, low or no guilt feeling) and you got what’s called ‘a psychopath’ in simple terms.
That’s all which stands between you helping someone or knifing them down to simply see what happens. That’s how thin the barrier is. 2 major pointers.
Btw, between 0.75-1% of people are world-wide are psychopaths, hence people with the potential to do exactly what I mentioned there. Albeit to be fair, the majority never does as other factors play into when they would do such a thing compared to living a completely normal life with likely very shoddy social life though.
And society is a fairly simple construct at the basis. The only reason it’s complex is because humans were never meant to live in such large groups and we’re desperately trying to adjust to that while our brains are still gradually advancing from being in the stone age. Evolution needs many many generations after all, it’s a slow slow process.
