Social monitoring alone cannot sustain cooperation in large anonymous groups

Evidence

We saw that social monitoring is a powerful motivator in prosocial interactions. But it can go only so far. It depends on the actual or implied presence of others; it also depends on keeping track of others’ reputations, which is severely limited by group size. As the number of interactions increase, anonymity creeps back into the situation and reputational mechanisms break down. This is the key problem of large groups plagued by anonymity, and this is precisely why these large groups are always vulnerable to splintering or collapse unless additional processes arise to restore and maintain high levels of cooperation in these ever-larger groups. While social monitoring has ancient evolutionary roots and by all accounts predated religion, it came to serve as the basis of a supernatural solution to the problem of anonymity. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 94

Categorization

• XREF: The anonymity-collapse mechanism explains precisely why the Japanese authorities’ fumi-e performs its work: by publicly forcing visible apostasy they inject observable information into a community whose reputational tracking is otherwise swamped by group size and anonymity. — connects to: Dependence on anonymous producers drives demand for formal legal control — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 180; Randomly assembled strangers cannot produce the free discussion the Institute’s group model assumed — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 462