you're reading...
human nature, science

According to science, people are mostly good.

A recent study gives us a fascinating look into how humans “naturally” behave.  Scientists collected data from the online game Pardus, which has over 300,000 players, and crunched it through a series of analysis techniques for complex systems.  The game is one where the players are free to behave in any way they choose, with no built in advantages for good or bad.  The bottom line?  Humans are mostly good, most of the time, and they generally behave well even if there are no laws preventing bad behavior.

According to the study:

 The analysis of binary timeseries of players (good-bad) shows that the behavior of almost all players is ‘good’ almost all the time. Negative actions are balanced to a large extent by good ones. Players with a high fraction of negative actions tend to have a significantly shorter life. This may be due to two reasons: First because they are hunted down by others and give up playing, second because they are unable to maintain a social life and quit the game because of loneliness or frustration. We interpret these findings as empirical evidence for self organization towards reciprocal, good conduct within a human society. Note that the game allows bad behavior in the same way as good behavior but the extent of punishment of bad behavior is freely decided by the players. (LINK)

Another interesting observation was that negative behavior is more repetitive than reciprocal.  In other words, those who do bad often repeat bad behaviors.  Scientists also found that people who have recently been wronged are 10 times more likely to do wrong themselves compared to people who have been treated fairly.  This is a powerful truth that has far-reaching implications. There are, apparently, bad apples, and they can spoil the bunch.  (Hint for Christians:  Here’s your empirical justification for rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior without reference to a deity.)

There is also an implicit warning in this finding:  In the complex real world, there is often little difference between being wronged and feeling as if you’ve been wronged.  We would expect that people who perceive themselves as victims of wrongdoing would also be more likely to act wrongly.  This is a chilling observation when we consider that the Republican Party and FOX News specialize in villainizing an entire class of people (liberals) and convincing its viewers that they are being wronged.  It has created a culture where many, many people believe there is a left wing conspiracy to take their money, their freedom, and their rights.  It has taught us that anger is the correct response to political opposition.  If this study is correct, they are causing great societal harm, and greatly increasing the probability that individuals will do evil.

Of course, this study plunges another dagger into Christian theology, which asserts that humans are inherently evil, and need the moral foundation of an external deity.  Rather, it appears, humans are exactly as evolutionary theory predicts — they are good most of the time, naturally.  Habitual evil-doers are rare, and the group sees to it that they are punished.  Evil begets evil, and good begets good.  It’s very logical, very natural, and very predictable.  There was no external pressure to be good in this game, either from a god or game coding, and people behaved well most of the time.

This study is very important for several reasons.  First, it has the advantage of complete data, which is almost unheard of in social science.  Studying humans has always involved some degree of educated guesswork because we simply cannot know everything about any individual.  In this case, every player’s actions were logged for the entire duration of their time online.  The scientists literally knew everything thateverybody did.

Another difficulty in social science is the ethics of manipulating people’s private lives.  We simply cannot put subjects in dangerous or life-altering circumstances just to see what happens.  In a game, however, we have much more latitude for experimentation.  Pardus was chosen because it contains 8 core activities that define every human society:  Communication, trade, making friends, making enemies, ending friendships, reconciling with enemies, attacking, and punishing.  Furthermore, there are no restrictions in the game itself on whether or not people may act badly.  Each player may be as good or bad as he wants.  In many ways, it is the perfect analog for the real-life experiment we couldn’t ethically perform — putting a lot of people on an island with no rules to see what happened.

Finally, this study eliminated one of the most consternating problems with studying real humans:  Actions can very rarely be seen as “all good” or “all bad.”  The nuance of complex human relationships makes binary analysis virtually impossible.  In the game environment, the mechanics are very simple.  Attacking people is bad.  Being nice to people is good.  Trading fairly is good.  Cheating is bad.  Simple.  Binary.  Crystal clear.

Continuing research in this area has exciting implications for social engineering, especially in societies that are going “down the wrong path.”  While most people in game were good most of the time, the scientists found that there’s truth to the platitude that evil begets evil.  Pockets of bad behavior tended to be self-reinforcing, and people tended to act badly if they had been the target of a bad action.  By understanding the nature of these pockets of bad behavior, we can learn how to identify them before they grow, and intervene to turn them in a more prosocial direction.



4 thoughts on “According to science, people are mostly good.

  1. So why are people so bad in the real world? Doesn’t being bad pay off more than being good? Don’t nice guys finish last? In this game what is possible payoff for being bad?
    I suspect because the players know it is a game, they also know there is no possibility of real payoff for being bad. For being good, you get the reward of approval of the other players.

    Posted by Barney | January 21, 2012, 5:37 pm
  2. The fact that atheist take the bait hook line and sinker to draw favorable conclusions from the results of a game to support justification for their atheism speaks volumes…

    Posted by PG | February 12, 2012, 12:11 am
  3. My folks are Jehovah’s Witnesses. They believe only their religion has Gods approval. Come Armageddon 99.9% of Earths population deserve to die for being “wicked” (code for not adhering to JW’s). They see no inconsistency in the Bible either. Recall the inhabitants of the “Promised Land” must have been “wicked,” – all of them…infants, kids, men, women, animals – to justify God’s command to Israel to slaughter them and take over. And of course all the people on planet Earth – infants, kids, men, women – must must have been super-wicked to rationalize drowning them with Noah’s flood without warning or educating them.

    So yeah LWaN, something must be wrong with this study. The HAS to be!

    Posted by Legion | March 22, 2012, 3:07 pm
  4. There´s a big flaw on this study.

    I wonder what is the age average of those players. My personal experience tells me that young people are naive and therefore willing to help each other, which is great, but as you´re getting older things change, and you turn more confident in yourself for everything including doing bad, specially for egotistic reasons.

    And I can guess, this being an online game that those players average age is around 20´s and I´m being a little over the line here.

    Tell me what you all think about this, I¨m open to your opinions.

    Posted by Edgar Manuel Juarez | October 17, 2013, 7:34 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: