Co-Operative Punishment as element of cohesion towards pro-social community

I was reading another targeted individual’s account and it got me thinking about community as another element of organized stalking/gangstalking, but I couldn’t really identify it as unifying factor for every TI – as abuse continues even after TI moves to new place, another country, even continent. One has to keep in mind that TI might be anchored/conditioned to some common stimuli and without deprogramming it doesn’t matter where he moves as torture becomes internal.

Community is very important aspect of “organized stalking”, but looking at it from a distance it’s not the community, but synthetic albeit informal aspect of this crime what makes it so hard for TI to pierce the veil the bubble of isolation. Community itself can’t be at fault as responsibility is diffused, but emerging organizational structure of community that is almost by design can be exploited to invert position on one of their members by attaching stigma to targeted individual to gain necessary level of legitimacy for systematic abuse. It is also strange that not a single instance of “organized stalking” got revealed by so called “perps” or witnesses, who are supposedly operating around TI’s in the throves. Especially having in mind all the modern communication, social media, safe community policing initiatives, etc. One can say that it’s expected as with mobbing or bullying, since the fact of revelation wouldn’t be self-beneficial, but altruistic if revealer of conspiracy understands the conspiracy. So for conspiracy to be revealed for the benefit towards TI by casual observer in the community:

  • observer has to be certain of conspiracy
  • It is altruistic – as observer understands the unethical effects it’s supposed to have on TI and community at large, so helping TI would be about “fixing something broken in the system”

There are limits on how far one can influence another’s ideas and actions. Attempts to assert total control are likely to be met with ingenuity to circumvent it towards freedom. People tend to rely on their own, those who share a common identity, for they most closely share values and interests. If community is a part of a system where TI or number of TI’s can be seen as outsiders by some sort of criteria and “organized stalking” is just one of the augmented mechanisms for the system to deal with targets by informal repression – it means system isn’t broken. It works like a clock. One can look at it as incapacitation as alternative to incarceration, where augmentation of existing fears and neurosis (that to some degree exists in everyone, except psychopaths) to the level requiring psychiatric attention. Whatever it really is – it is form of eugenics and modern day community can almost be perceived having cult characteristics where members aren’t even aware of top-down manipulation.

One discipline that looks at “organized stalking” seriously is social research and simulation. Only they call it Co-Operative Punishment. This research paper called Co-Operative Punishment Cements Social Cohesion (archive.org) makes interesting theoretical case for organized stalking:

Co-operative punishment together with pro-social behavior produces a self reinforcing system that allows the emergence of a ‘Darwinian Leviathan’ that strengthens social institutions.

Pro-social behavior is not ethical or non-ethical – according to research it simply means “behavior that favors the group”. Subjects of punishment are called freeriders. It’s hard to tell what they mean by that, but I guess ones that exhibit behavior that doesn’t favor the group. They even seriously discuss mobbing as one of the forms of cooperative punishment towards a goal of promoting pro-social behavior.

The core of the problem, we believe, is the assumption that the punishment required to enforce pro-social altruism has to be applied individually-without possibly coordinating efforts with other group members-as in a prisoners’ dilemma situation. We fail to see why members of a social group could not apply punishment co-operatively-instead of individually-which would enable them to distribute the costs of punishment evenly among all group members. And if such costs can, in fact, be distributed among group members, the cost to each individual is minimized and the theoretical problem of the understanding the evolutionary dynamics of pro-social behavior may actually be solved (Zaballa 2006). Co-operative punishment is a fundamental part of human society -as exemplified by human bands, Indian tribes, slum mobsters, the police, law enforcement, taxation and most modern social institutions- and might occur in other animal societies although we could not find any published evidence for this. Another route to co-operative punishment is mobbing. Although as described originally it is aimed at predators, it is used to harass co-operatively something that represents a threat to them, mobbing against conspecifics would classify as co-operative punishment. Unfortunately experimental evidence for behaviors like mobbing or other cooperative strategies to punish intra-specific free-riders among animal societies is very scarce or totally absent.

So they have formulas and ran simulations with three different types of societies – no collective punishment, altruistic punishment and cooperative punishment. The key conclusions:

  • Co-operative punishment may reduce the costs of punishment as a consequence of the synergy that typically results from co-operation. For example, when various individuals punish someone co-operatively, resistance may be expected to fall dramatically reducing the cost for punishing and thus increasing the ratio: cost to punished / cost to punisher

  • Co-operative punishment may increase the effectiveness of punishment as a result of the combined capacities of many society members in monitoring individual behavior, making it possible to detect infractions in a way that freelance punishers could never match.

  • Social enforcement of rules is less subject to forces affecting the individual, such as a lack of immediacy, or immediately available resources for punishment, etc., and thus more efficient by itself, irrespective of all advantages cited above

  • Co-operative punishment may involve additional costs in terms of observations, evaluations, and discussions required to reach an agreement. In constituted societies punishment costs may actually lie for the most part in these necessary proceedings rather than in the execution of punishment itself, thus reinforcing its power to exert a consistent selective pressure leading to the evolution of pro-social behaviors.

  • In any case, humans enforce pro social structures by co-operative punishment following the same basic pattern as mob-beatings, for society members carefully avoid assuming the costs of punishment individually, but press for public resolutions that divide the costs of punishment among all society members. One way to achieve this is reputation through moral gossip, by which individuals make public their private knowledge of other people’s antisocial behavior until there is a consensus to apply some form of punishment. If after a series of antisocial acts people agree, for instance, that the offender should be ostracized-a common punishment in band societies that in practice may amount to death penalty-the costs of such punishment, which consist mainly of loosing the co-operative capacities of the offender, are practically nil. This kind of cooperation might be especially important in keeping religious groups together . Another way to socialize the costs of punishment is to appoint punishers (police among humans; individuals specialized in tackling social corruption among social insects and compensate them with public resources-the common pile of food in our modeled society-so that the costs of punishment are ultimately borne by all society members, whether they actually participate in punishment or not.

This research is purely theoretical, but sort of scary to think about it as foundation for pro-social society where cooperation is enforced by mob rule. Social scientists have a lot of intriguing games: dictator game, ultimatum game, prisoner’s dilemma game, trust game, cooperation game, social trap, public choice, etc

So maybe it’s incorrect to look at organized stalking from TI’s position alone as it is probably modeled with community in mind. It might also be helpful for TI to distinguish real perps from average community member who is only cooperating without realizing the bigger picture.

Another quote from research into Social Norms. Website gondapeter.sk/files/social_norms_presen_gnd.pdf disabled no pdf archive available. There is archive of his diploma. It seems it’s just quotes taken from other works – this and this:

punishment cooperation gameLarge percentage of subjects are willing to enforce distribution and cooperation norms even though they incur costs and reap no economic benefit from their sanctions and even though they have not been directly harmed by the norm violation.

Research shows that punishment is a human universal. “We used two behavioral experiments, the ultimatum and third party punishment games, among 1762 adults sampled from 15 diverse populations from five continents, representing the breadth of human production systems.” “All populations demonstrate some willingness to administer costly punishment as unequal behavior increases”

So here you have it. Social research explains how organized stalking, harassment and disruption tactics can be tolerated and even supported by community at large as long as it’s defined as punishment for behavior that is detrimental to the group. Thoughts?

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Co-Operative Punishment as element of cohesion towards pro-social community

  1. This is kind of scary to read. I feel I am being punished in this way, however, my case may (or may not) be a bit different in that I have implants, and my upbringing mimics that of a typical mind control victim. I spent half of my childhood in a literal house of mirrors (mirrored closet doors, mirrored coffee table, mirrored wallpaper, mirrored switchplates & outlet covers, mirrored dressers and night stands, even a mirrored shower stall). I was adopted, possibly stolen from my mother at birth, and I think that they may have implanted me then to be a part of some sick experiment, or worse. Unfortunately, I have also seen an occult aspect to this, which is difficult for most to see, but after what I have learned, I cannot deny it.
    I have proof of my implants at:
    http://musicis2words.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/how-my-case-differs-from-wellknown-mind-control-cases
    The occult aspect is found at other documents on my wordpress site.
    I feel that I was set up on purpose, to be a negative, sad, and apathetic individual, so that I would wind up doing negative things, so that I could be persecuted for it later, as if it was a whole program set up before I was even born. I feel that I was sold into slavery for this purpose.

    • Sorry to hear about it, Music2words. I just want to point to one thing – there is a huge difference between believing and knowing. Uncertainty normally perceived as something in between. I think belief not based on evidence should always be available for reconsideration and reassessment as it belong to uncertainty domain. Mind hates uncertainty and vacuum so much that it will accept even strangest answers just to get rid of this uncomfortable feeling and often substitutes belief for evidence and vice versa. Maybe uncertainty isn’t so bad? Maybe we do not need to be certain about everything? What I’m trying to say that we TI’s are all looking for answers to questions that are not easy to answer, we are solving problems are seemingly unsolvable. In the meantime we have some partial temporary answers that help us cope throughout process.

      • Well, the reason I think I was set up at birth is because I have these things in my head, at my ears, which are the exact size and shape of RFIDs, but I have never felt any pain in those sites, which is why I think I was implanted at birth. Since I was adopted through a catholic agency, and held by that agency for the 1st 6 weeks of my life, & since the catholic church has multiple adoption scandals whereby they have participated in child-trafficking (ex: thru the catholic church, 300,000 babies were stolen, from their mothers over a 50 year period, in spain), the fact that I might have been stolen from my birth mother and used in some unethical, nonconsentual human experiment is becoming more and more clear.

        In my previous comment, & in other writings, I say “believe”, because no one will help me to remove these things, to get a serial number & possibly track down the original perpetraitor of this heinous crime against me.
        Because if I was able to get one removed, I would then have no doubt whatsoever, that such a crime occurred against my personal property, as an infant, & without my consent, informed or otherwise.

        With these implants, my choice is to either believe they are implants, or to believe I am a demon or the devil. Which would you be likely to think?

        I’m sorry, this is not an attack at you. It is just me trying to figure it out. I can be pretty sure that I am now a targeted individual simply because I am a mind control victim with implants, & “they” want no witnesses.

  2. When you speak of “cooperative punishment”, I am immediately reminded of what Ayn Rand said about “collectivism vs. individualism”. I say this because there is a sense of the collective ganging up against an individual in both your account above, and in what she speaks of.
    Again, I am not attacking you. Your blog has helped me reach certain insights I would not have had if you hadn’t been writing.
    Thank you.

  3. I would never see opinion on some issue as attack. It just something that another person stands by now and is sharing it. I appreciate all comments. It helps me too as it reflects on different point of view, provides a glimpse into perspective that I might have overlooked or missed completely.
    You have gone through a lot, but even though you keep saying negative things about yourself I do not see any negativity coming from you. On the contrary your blog and comments display acceptance and outward good will.
    I have trouble understanding dialectics behind implants vs demon. How do voices manifest? Do they have acoustic/aural characteristics or could be thoughts that are so foreign and scary that you have no choice but distance from them by attributing them characteristics of unknown. What I’m trying to pinpoint is the source of stress – is it the medium of delivery, the content/message or reaction to it?

    • Well, the content (telling me that I am a demon or the devil, and that I am going to hell) is scary enough. The fact that these things are on my head, in front of each ear, is also pretty scary. When I first began to hear voices, which was during the same year that I discovered these things, they said they loved me, needed me, that I was an angel, etc… that is what they call “love bombing”… to be followed up by all the other stuff that I am currently encountering, whereby every memory is brought up and I am blamed for things that, had I had a normal childhood, meaning, had I not been drowned at 3y/o, had I not spent half my childhood in a literal house of mirrors, had I had any actual people involved in my upbringing besides those in the TV, then most if not all of the negative things I did when I was younger would have never happened. BTW, I wasn’t that bad, but these voices are judging me as if I was an ax murderer or something.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s