There are quite a few claims made in this post without any supporting evidence. I think in the context of a site like this that it would be courteous to share at least some of the evidence that led you to believe them. (Is this a silly rule?)
Is it in fact true that silly rules help groups adapt to uncertainty about the stability of social order? If so, is it in fact true that they do so by enriching the information environment? What evidence supports it? Is there any evidence against?
Is it in fact true that they help participants in these groups track their beliefs about the likelihood that violations of important rules will be punished and thus the likelihood that important rules will be violated?
Is it in fact true that these beliefs are critical to the incentive to invest resources in interaction?
I think in the context of a site like this that it would be courteous to share at least some of the evidence that led you to believe them. (Is this a silly rule?)
No, it is not a silly rule, because the rule has an impact on welfare.
Is it in fact true that silly rules help groups adapt to uncertainty about the stability of social order?
The simulations indicate that.
If so, is it in fact true that they do so by enriching the information environment?
The simulation is built on hidden information which one could paraphrase in aggregate as “enriching the information environment.”
Is it in fact true that they help participants in these groups track their beliefs about the likelihood that violations of important rules will be punished
Again, in the scope of the simulation, yes.
I agree that the simulations can’t answer what goes in people’s heads. It can only help guide an intuition via analogy between the model and reality. This is not a social study and I would like to see a study of silly rules in practice. One could, for example, compare the life-time of Slack groups with or without high usage of emoticons.
Is it in fact true that these beliefs are critical to the incentive to invest resources in interaction?
That sounds like it is changing from the group dynamic to the individual incentives which is not relevant here.
There are quite a few claims made in this post without any supporting evidence. I think in the context of a site like this that it would be courteous to share at least some of the evidence that led you to believe them. (Is this a silly rule?)
Is it in fact true that silly rules help groups adapt to uncertainty about the stability of social order? If so, is it in fact true that they do so by enriching the information environment? What evidence supports it? Is there any evidence against?
Is it in fact true that they help participants in these groups track their beliefs about the likelihood that violations of important rules will be punished and thus the likelihood that important rules will be violated?
Is it in fact true that these beliefs are critical to the incentive to invest resources in interaction?
No, it is not a silly rule, because the rule has an impact on welfare.
The simulations indicate that.
The simulation is built on hidden information which one could paraphrase in aggregate as “enriching the information environment.”
Again, in the scope of the simulation, yes.
I agree that the simulations can’t answer what goes in people’s heads. It can only help guide an intuition via analogy between the model and reality. This is not a social study and I would like to see a study of silly rules in practice. One could, for example, compare the life-time of Slack groups with or without high usage of emoticons.
That sounds like it is changing from the group dynamic to the individual incentives which is not relevant here.