If this is the case, I wonder if we can use the side effects that we get from the vaccination as evidence on a personal level for whether we fall into the immune group. At a glance it seems that their presence would mean successful and strong activation of the immune response, so it would be more likely to end up working for us? Not sure if there is a correlation here and how strong it might be.
If they have similar attitudes to mine, then the feelings are slightly positive, possibly because of receiving validation for my own behaviour. On the other hand, if the defectors are doing worse things, the feelings are fully negative, I don't think there is any effect as you suggest.
To put things more concretely, I try not to do anything harmful but also don't do anything that helps society (charity, activism, environmental stuff, etc.) unless I get some concrete benefit. When someone does defect in the way of being actively harmful or breaking laws, then my emotions are negative as I said, but interestingly not as strong as in the case of activists. Perhaps because such behaviour feels normal and expected from other people, or just because it doesn't feel as much like a threat to me personally.
So I would say that your second suggestion is correct in my case, I do have a sweet spot of cooperation (basically what I do and feel is justified) and dislike deviations from that, with heavier weight on the "more cooperation" direction.
I'm from Eastern Europe and have this tendency. I've been quite curious about why for example any kind of activism evokes negative emotions and I think at least in my case the answer seems to be what you're proposing here. The prevalent attitude in society is to free-ride as much as you can and I'm also doing that. To answer the question from the beginning of the post, if we just let other people make cooperation the new norm, then I'll be expected to cooperate too. I want to keep not caring about society, so I guess the actions of cooperators cash out emotionally as a threat to the status quo that I want to preserve.
The biggest concern/red flag for me is one aspect of the authoritarian nature of the project. I would be perfectly fine with fully outsourcing decisions (giving higher intellectual status) but not with being a subordinate in full generality. What I'm trying to point at is the difference between "What should I do? He said to do "x" and I trust his expertise so this is my best option and I'm going to make myself do it if unpleasant" and someone forcing me to do the thing.
Which of the two would be my intuitive reaction depends mostly on your character/attitude and this is something that is completely missing from the discussion so far. Hopefully that is because people know you so they are sure it wouldn't be a problem but your comments here only show competence and don't exclude arrogance or enjoying power too much and beginning to boss people around. I found concerning the comparisons to military bootcamps and talking about tyrants as this somewhat paints the image of "someone shouting at people to do stuff" which I expect to have severe negative effects and build up resentment quickly. In other words it seems to me that constraining your image strictly to the one who decides what is to be done as opposed to someone who also enforces the execution would reduce the risk of failure of the experiment. Enforcing by regulating incentives should be fine as it won't speak to System 1 and provoke the low-level "Who are you to tell me what to do" reaction.
Maybe this is an obvious point that having a nice and respectful leader is better than powerful tyrant but I'm not sure how far I can generalize from my own preferences so decided to share anyway. Apologies if this doesn't make sense or wastes your time, I'm new to posting here.
Used the poll. I've been reading mostly old posts for the last year but never registered as I feel I can't contribute much to the discussions. I check the discussion forum regularly but read/click only what seems interesting or is highly upvoted.