Fabian Heß

📢 Call for Submissions

Submissions are now open for the 23rd Jena Workshop on Intergroup Processes, taking place 9–12 July 2026 in Tambach, Germany.

Abstract We investigate a phenomenon which we have experienced as common when dealing with an assortment of Italian public and private institutions: people promise to exchange high-quality goods and services, but then something goes wrong and the quality delivered is lower than had been promised. While this is perceived as ‘cheating’ by outsiders, insiders seem not only to adapt to, but to rely on this outcome. They do not resent low-quality exchanges; in fact, they seem to resent high-quality ones, and are inclined to put pressure on or avoid dealing with agents who deliver high quality. The equilibrium among low-quality producers relies on an unusual preference ranking which differs from that associated with the Prisoners’ Dilemma and similar games, whereby self-interested rational agents prefer to dish out low quality in exchange for high quality. While equally ‘lazy’, agents in our low-quality worlds are oddly ‘pro-social’: for the advantage of maximizing their raw self-interest, they prefer to receive low-quality goods and services, provided that they too can in exchange deliver low quality without embarrassment. They develop a set of oblique social norms to sustain their preferred equilibrium when threatened by the intrusion of high quality. We argue that high-quality collective outcomes are endangered not only by self-interested individual defectors, but by ‘cartels’ of mutually satisfied mediocrities.

Gambetta & Origgi on the LL Game, in which agents prefer to deliver and receive (!) low quality.

This paper is absolutely savage but also feels uncomfortably relevant to parts of academia outside of Italy 👀

diegogambetta.org/wp-content/u...

This article reveals a fundamental misconception of AI. ChatGPT doesn't know (or care) what's true or false. It cannot be "honest" or "sincere" with you (therefore it is never evil). It is still a helpful tool if you don't have similar expectations as of a human conversation partner.

Rapid climate change threat can foster antagonistic radical responses (pro-road blocks and anti-activists):
doi.org/10.1037/vio0...

Muslims and Non‐Muslims: In Conflict or Harmony With Each Other? Conflict‐Related Ingroup Norms Shape Threat Effects on Intergroup Behavioural Intentions Threat increases ethnocentric motivation and can thus trigger hostile intergroup behaviour. However, ingroup norms–whether promoting conflict or positive intergroup relations–should moderate these ef...

New research: threat does not necessarily increase radicalism/hostility but ingroup norm conformity (which can also promote harmony/friendliness etc.):
doi.org/10.1002/casp...

Is radicalization necessarily a fringe phenomenon? In IJPCS, I present a social-psychological definition of the radicalized mainstream: rdcu.be/ejnEo

Realitätsflucht oder Selbstfürsorge? Rückzug in turbulenten Zeiten Zeitschleifen · Episode

Engagement vs Rückzug: ich durfte im ZeitschleifenPodcast über Ungangsformen mit Krisen sprechen.

open.spotify.com/episode/4uU3...

Sorry fürs Rumnörgeln am ansonsten tollen Thread, aber diese Schlussfolgerung ist aus dem zuvor Geschriebenen logisch nicht zulässig. ;-)

Deine Chance, als Nicht-Deutscher angezeigt zu werden, ist im Allgemeinen zwar um 50% erhöht, aber ob das auch gilt, wenn du Straftaten begehst, ist unbekannt.

Oh, our civilization is actually organized around science, but science doesn't tell us what to do. That would be a misunderstanding of science...