DISQUS

I think the “social proof” factor which he mentioned at the end of the post is a much more important factor.


The trouble with social proof explanations is that they are circular, to an extent. They only tell you that there will be homogeneity in the behaviour of different people, but they won't tell you whether the behaviour will be X or Y.



Take for example, the gamers in third and final years, the hierarchy was well known, still the enthu was never down. There were many surprise new entrants once in a while fighting their way up.



Quakers were mostly playing CTFs, which are team rather than 1-on-1 events, and hence there isn't much loss of face here. (I think the situation was similar with AOE as well.) Plus, skill in gaming is inherently a matter of practice. Quake stays the same year after year, whereas the subjects in your curriculum change each semester. Hence, even if you aren't good today, if you practise a lot, you can get much better. Also, new entrants fighting their way up is never prohibited by the pecking order analogy - after all the new entrants, being new, don't know their relative ability against the others, right?



the enthu level in pre-graduation days. i.e, the primary, high school, etc., classes. The hierarchy is pretty much set and stagnant there. But the enthu isn’t exactly on a decline year on year.



Your parents monitor you much more closely when you are at school! But if a new kid comes into a school having been a topper in his previous school, he will try and top in the new school. I will claim in addition that if he fails to top a few times, he will put in lesser effort in studies and more effort in those status games where he has better chances. All of this is subject to the constraint of parent monitoring of course.



Btw, I have seen this declining enthu phenomenon in my 11th and 12th when I was in a hostel (and the kids had far lesser parental monitoring).



I think students don’t exactly know what is expected of them (percentage marks) when they enter first year. So they try to get roughly as much as in their pre-grad days.

Say, in an alternative universe, the toppers in pre-college only score ~80% , but it is possible to score 95% once they get into university. Do you think the pre-college toppers would be satisfied with scoring just 80% once they get into university, instead of readjusting their goals to aim for 95% instead of 80%?



But with time, as they settle down, they come to accept that 70% is also an okay marks and everybody else is taken that much anyway, so theres nothing much to feel ashamed about.



But why do some readjust their sights downward to 70%, even though the toppers are still scoring 85%? You are taking the phenomenon you are supposed to explain for granted.

I think the “social proof” factor which he mentioned at the end of the post is a much more important factor.

The trouble with social proof explanations is that they are circular, to an extent. They only tell you that there will be homogeneity in the behaviour of different people, but they won't tell you whether the behaviour will be X or Y.

Take for example, the gamers in third and final years, the hierarchy was well known, still the enthu was never down. There were many surprise new entrants once in a while fighting their way up.

Quakers were mostly playing CTFs, which are team rather than 1-on-1 events, and hence there isn't much loss of face here. (I think the situation was similar with AOE as well.) Plus, skill in gaming is inherently a matter of practice. Quake stays the same year after year, whereas the subjects in your curriculum change each semester. Hence, even if you aren't good today, if you practise a lot, you can get much better. Also, new entrants fighting their way up is never prohibited by the pecking order analogy - after all the new entrants, being new, don't know their relative ability against the others, right?

the enthu level in pre-graduation days. i.e, the primary, high school, etc., classes. The hierarchy is pretty much set and stagnant there. But the enthu isn’t exactly on a decline year on year.

Your parents monitor you much more closely when you are at school! But if a new kid comes into a school having been a topper in his previous school, he will try and top in the new school. I will claim in addition that if he fails to top a few times, he will put in lesser effort in studies and more effort in those status games where he has better chances. All of this is subject to the constraint of parent monitoring of course.

Btw, I have seen this declining enthu phenomenon in my 11th and 12th when I was in a hostel (and the kids had far lesser parental monitoring).

I think students don’t exactly know what is expected of them (percentage marks) when they enter first year. So they try to get roughly as much as in their pre-grad days.
Say, in an alternative universe, the toppers in pre-college only score ~80% , but it is possible to score 95% once they get into university. Do you think the pre-college toppers would be satisfied with scoring just 80% once they get into university, instead of readjusting their goals to aim for 95% instead of 80%?

But with time, as they settle down, they come to accept that 70% is also an okay marks and everybody else is taken that much anyway, so theres nothing much to feel ashamed about.

But why do some readjust their sights downward to 70%, even though the toppers are still scoring 85%? You are taking the phenomenon you are supposed to explain for granted.

Useful links. Nice pictures also, including in the previous post.

Useful links. Nice pictures also, including in the previous post.

I loved this post.

The second screenshot gives the impression that all the windows are their original size (or I thought so first). Now I realise they are scaled down so that they can all fit on the screen.

ok, can see now. and, gosh, whats your desktop resolution?

Um, cant see the photos.

What was the point of the fort? Wasnt there, like, a ferry service to the fort or something?

And, btw, have you bought a digicam?

Your comments section is much user-friendlier now!