[...] is also a bit hard to define, but I like Raph’s definition of “a social game for kindness.” If you wanted to be more specific, you might also call it an alternate reality game backed [...]

It’s only been in judeo-christian religions that we are told that true giving must be anonymous and done with humility.

Speaking as somebody operating outside the judeo-christian-islamic framework, I rather enjoy anonymous gifting. Done in a clever manner, it is reminiscent of the benevolent trickster ethos exemplified by Coyote; done without regard to self, it echos tenants of Zen Buddhism.

I’m not knocking the “potlatch” approach to benevolence as status competition, and this is a smart and intriguing implementation. I’m just saying that the anonymous approach is just as valid and not specific to the Abrahamic religions.

Thanks for the notice of Akoha. Very interesting discussion here among your readers.

One point that the debate about altruistic motives being attached to cards & an invitation to play-it-forward is the social benefits of giving in public.

We based Akoha off a study of gift economies (Aboriginal, Whuffie, Wikipedia etc.) where the act of giving is done in public with social recognition that then goes onto inspire & create social status tied to giving rather then consumption. In a number of ways this is what has created social media. I see someone blogging for free, and all of a sudden it inspires me to say “I can do that…I have something to say”. I see someone blow up coke & mento’s on YouTube and I realize I could one up them and record my own video of Coke & Mento’s. Apply it to flickr, writing open source code, contributing knowledge to wikipedia. It’s all a public invitation to participate.

Gift cultures build social status around those to gave well. It’s only been in judeo-christian religions that we are told that true giving must be anonymous and done with humility. I think this robs others of the chance to learn, be inspired & participate.

Without the theory or social debate, we just want to make it more fun for people to connect & share social adventures in the real world

Hope to connect with you at GDC.

Thanks for all the comments folks.

if they cared there’d be too many people to care about, and they’d be forced to shut down. If this were the case, it wouldn’t be because other people are trying to hurt them, but because so many other people are in pain or in need that the empathetic feelings toward all of them would become overwhelming.

Security is security, regardless of whether it is protecting from malice, accidents, (misguided) benevolence or any other effects. What’s the difference if a person breaks down emotionally because of malice or because they become so empathetic towards everyone that they become overwhelmed?

But I think you may be creating a false scenario that doesn’t need to be protected against

Of course people already protect themselves. My intent was not to protect them, but to point out that those protection mechanisms are not bad, mean, or whatever. I figure there’d be a mix of people either ignoring, being happy, or being creeped out – my point is that there is nothing wrong with any of those reactions; and that you’d get more meaningful results dealing with people that you already know and care about.

In the grand social network, if people bring down their firewalls could we connect more? If they turn off their virus scanners could we spread more love? would the world be a better place? perhaps, perhaps not.

[insert obligatory reference to Neon Genesis Evangelion]

You know, I’d be interested in looking at statistics on whether big city folk are actually more distant and closed than small town folks. I’m not sure that that stereotype has any basis at all.

I think it’s a framing thing. The people who begin these comparisons aren’t “big city people”; they’re people who are used to the environment and social conditions of small towns. Naturally, you walk into a new environment, sense that it’s very different from what you’re used to, and you try to see what’s off about it. If you liked the place you came from, then you’re naturally going to conclude this new environment’s differences are flaws. It’s really an unremarkable culture clash.

Every time I’ve visited a friend in a new city, they tell me, “The people in this city really are quite friendly,” and have no problems using the entire citizenry as a backup in case I get lost. Unfortunately, I never get lost, so I haven’t really been able to test out their exhortations.

An Eskimo visits Africa, 2000 years ago. ZOMG YOU DONT WEAR CLOTHES!? *faint from heat exhaustion*

but that’s an engineering issue in effect; even government is an engineering issue when you get down to it

Everything is an engineering issue, when you get down to it. But also, hammer, nails.

Even if it is true that big city folk are more distant and closed, though, that doesn’t necessarily demonstrate that it’s because they’re defending themselves against anything other than sensory overload; if they cared there’d be too many people to care about, and they’d be forced to shut down. If this were the case, it wouldn’t be because other people are trying to hurt them, but because so many other people are in pain or in need that the empathetic feelings toward all of them would become overwhelming. Not saying this is necessarily the case, or that there’s not a mixture of the two, or something else entirely, but you need to control for the reason (if it happens) before making a comment using it as the basis.

But I think you may be creating a false scenario that doesn’t need to be protected against, in any event. I don’t think that the natural defenses that we create to defend ourselves from emotional or physical harm actually have valid uses within the context we’re talking about; you don’t need to become more gullible or more open to harm to accept a random bit of kindness. And you can definitely filter what’s coming at you as safe or unsafe, so this isn’t an either or scenario either. Your firewall lets certain content pass through it that’s marked as legitimate. So you don’t want to turn these things off, but you don’t want to kill the network by blocking all traffic either. Balance in all things.

And as long as we’re being respectful toward people’s individual freedoms and leave the responsibility of their growth in their own hands being kind to them can’t really hurt them, at all.

(And as an aside, I would never posit that we should be striving to make the world a better place, but rather that we should be striving to make ourselves better people, and on an individual level. The world will tend to itself. Exceptions to that need to be made for necessary services and rule of law, because otherwise people start dying, but that’s an engineering issue in effect; even government is an engineering issue when you get down to it.)

re: taking things less seriously

I’ve been hoping that you would, yes.

There is about zero moralizing.

I’ve got nothing against the game. it seems mostly guided for friends, family and like-minded people anyway. I’m just noting the limits.

as for moralizing, whenever you say that you want the world to be a better place, the follow up question is always going to be “what do you consider better”?

what’s the reason people are distant and closed? why are the big city folk more like this then small city folk?

It’s a defence. and the difference implies we apply only as much as we need.

In the grand social network, if people bring down their firewalls could we connect more? If they turn off their virus scanners could we spread more love? would the world be a better place? perhaps, perhaps not.

it might be nice to believe that we can just shift protection to the perimeter and take it off the host, but as you all so thouroughly noted already, where exactly is the perimeter?

Instead of playing the anonymous cynic, why not stand behind your words? It’s hard to take anyone seriously who hides from responsibility.

Oh and Morgan, much as I disagree with lakdsjkf’s stance on this topic, that’s not really very useful for discussion. His point is still a point, regardless of whether or not you liked how he said it. That’s little more than an ad hominem attack. (And I’d submit that that particular rhetorical device doesn’t do what you’re accusing it of anyway.)

To respond to the actual point; the answer is that there’s no particular vulnerability at all, in either party, because the person being kind requires nor demands nothing of the other person; their response is wholly up to them and the outcome of that response is irrelevant to the act of kindness. It’s already occured and cannot be taken back. If someone is feigning kindness, it’s a different scenario, but if the kindness is genuine, then no one can really suffer at all unless they take it upon themselves to do so.

As an analogy: just because a paranoid person may think than even the people being nice to him are just trying to get close so they can hurt them, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be nice to people on the off chance they may be paranoid. That sort of response is irrational, and we shouldn’t change our behavior on account of it, not least because most people are relatively rational and they shouldn’t have to suffer our meaness on account of the few who aren’t. Similarly, because a few people may twist the intent of being kind doesn’t mean we should deny people who would appreciate that kindness the chance to do so.

There is about zero moralizing. So perhaps that’s why I’m so confused.

Morgan, yes, orginiated when people believed the world was flat (though, that’s debatable in a sense, as I recall that some of the greeks seem to have thought it was a globe even then ;p), but that still have a more than minor role in current cultural trends. And my point wasn’t that you were suggesting such a megaculture, but that Eastern and Western actually have meaning beyond geographics – they’re shorthand to refer to the cultural streams out of Rome/Greece or Asia – and that those cultural streams are different enough to warrant labels. Humans being roughly the same biologically is mostly irrelevant; human culture is not nearly as identical across the globe as our bodies are, and it plays a significant enough role in our interactions with each other that ignoring its impact isn’t very wise. So, it’s not inherently wrong to highlight a cultural difference by using shorthand to do it. (As long as it’s actually a difference: see below)

But yes, there are universal things about us too, which is why I said it was being very pedantic for me to bring it up; it didn’t actually affect the point you were making about altruism and ethnocentrism. It makes a difference about other things though, so rejecting the labels out of hand isn’t something I agree with.

(Also, on the point of geography, not really. I live in America, so geographically, Asia is to my west and Europe is to my east. But the terms remain the same; Western is always Europe, Eastern is always Asia. The shorthand doesn’t have anything to do with geography, but rather cultural streams. And this is why history and culture courses use the terms.)