'Cold Shoulder Theory'

I recently was introduced to this theory in name, though I have known the concept for quite awhile. It essentially states, as a metaphor, that if a window is broken some place and is not fixed, more windows will be broken. This is because a state of disrepair would theoretically push other individuals towards committing more of these acts, because it would be inferred by the populace that this behavior was okay if not punished and attended to. While this may be true to some extent, especially in high crime areas, there are huge negative aspects of this approach to broader public policy. This reflects in our society as across-the-board 'crackdowns' on violators in an effort to stop various behaviors.

As previously stated, there are indeed short-term statistical benefits to this type of action (at least some of the time). However, statistics can easily lie, masking greater problems that may arise or may be ignored because of an excessive reliance on this type of public policy. I believe the root of these problems lies in the reality that people even can be motivated into performing these types of actions by such trivial differences in the environment. If individuals thought rationally, were aware of the consequences of their actions more, were aware of the world, and were aware of themselves they would now have a moral ground to base their actions on rather than simply acting capriciously. A Stanford (?) university experiment confirms this; in a fake scenario where a person was supposedly injured, the biggest factor in whether they stopped to help was whether or not they were in a rush rather than the moral standing of their action. Indeed, most people would assume the latter to at least be more true, which reflects how poorly most people understand their own actions and the actions of others.

The above reflects a broader point I like to bring up from time to time; that simply applying surface solutions to a deep problem only lets the deep problem worsen over time. When these solutions are applied, the result is pretty, but the real problem merely goes underground or shifts in nature. One simply cannot solve a problem without changing the factors which actually cause it.

Blanket enforcement also tends to punish accidental or casual violators much more than necessary. While many may simply violate a rule out of lack of caring, many simple do not know. This means that the many who are not maliciously or carelessly violating may gain contempt for law enforcement and/or the law because of the way they have been treated. Blanket law enforcement lacks common sense, because the situation for 'breaking the law' varies per person.

Also, blanket enforcement hinders the checking mechanism of a law which is whether most people will abide by it. If most people will not abide by a law that has nothing to expressly do with safety (such as with speed limits or drug use), this noncompliance can often be taken as a signal that the law itself is unrealistic or has major flaws. With blanket enforcement that aims to stop all lawbreakers, this system of self-checking is destroyed.

All in all, it's important that problems such as littering, driving dangerously, and lack of respect for property are solved, but as well as law enforcement being involved, it's important to both examine the laws to make sure they apply properly and to possibly look at social methods for solving these problems. Social methods, unlikely legal ones, do differentiate between accidental/casual violators and malicious ones. They also hit the root of the problem far more. Social approaches include community programs, honest information, and awareness efforts that target families. It is important that families embody the right values because if not, the wrong values tend to spread within the family unit.

BWT does also have some useful parallels, too. Two of them I will discuss are the 'Cold Shoulder Theory', and the 'Small Talk Theory'.

The Cold Shoulder theory states that if a substantial percentage of a population (student, community, or otherwise) is cold and distant and nothing is done about it, then these attitudes will carry over into more of the population. This also is something of a vicious cycle, because once a 'cold atmosphere' is established, those who attempt to break it are surrounded by antisocial attitudes. Such prevents more social interaction from spreading, because socialization takes at least two people and because if the percentage of those who are warm is relatively low, then social interactions are rare.

The Small Talk theory states that if a large portion of the population talks about nonsense, then those who want to talk about deeper and more interestinubjects will not express themselves because it becomes impossible to do so. When the atmosphere favors 'jibber jabber' moreso than meaningful conversation, individuals often will not listen to those who express unconventional, profound, or meaningful ideas, or in some cases will merely pay lip service. This in turn causes fewer intelligent people to express themselves, which in turn causes fewer people to think intellectually, finally dumbing down the population. The social atmosphere of 'jibber jabber' may also influence some more desperate intelligent people to small talk to some extent, distracting them from their deeper thoguhts and conventions.

The last two 'theories' I made up seem to be pretty close to each other, and both almost constitute a 'virus' social model, in that negative atmospheres reinforce themselves greatly. This ideally would be true for positive acts and interactions as well (and is to a small extent), but perhaps is not because of the constant negativity people are bombarded with daily, especially in the media.