It is usually said that laws have be obeyed, while rules are followed. But are choices individuals that individuals have in society.

Learning habits and roles is at the same time learning social norms, which I would like to equate with the term "rules" used here.

Knowledge of informal rules is a sign of community affiliation. It values and supports this affiliation.

Dear colleagues!

Thanks for valuable remarks. It would also be desirable to learn your opinion on ways of formation of informal rules. Whether it is possible to consider them objective or their observance depends on features of interpretation?

I think that laws (corporate norms, religious norms, rules of conduct of social groups) influence in shaping culture of society. However, culture, encompassing various other factors, in turn influences generation of informal rules based mostly on social or group convenience. Likewise, personal or group power also decisively influences acceptance and application of the aforementioned rules, thus interweaving points of view that are as varied as they are complex for human coexistence.

Are rules and laws necessarily social? Would a person in a solitary environment, such as alone on an island still project or perceive some form of order or rules upon the environs in which they live and upon themselves?. They'll make demands on other creatures on the island that they should do act A and not act B when encroaching on boundaries that intercede with that person's life and space. They can also set personal requirements and rules to ensure they carry out certain necessary functions to order their life, such as they must do A by a certain time, or don't forget to carry out B etc, to continue is some form of regularity to guide their life by, just as for example, someone living in society might set a self obligation to go jogging at 5am every morning for personal reasons set by self.

Dear Grant Roberts!

Formation of rules has social character. The person who grew up in an animal to the environment will submit not to rules, but instincts.

However observance of rules will be connected with their individual interpretation.

Is instinct the first formulation of rules, or the foundation from which rules are built from, thus for example in early human interaction, that need, that instinct for survival etc, becomes the foundation from which agreed upon 'rules' develop? Even animals, when interacting socially such as packs demonstrate various 'social instincts' that from our perspective could be interpreted as rules? The human in an animal environ would be using instinct, as to what to allow, what to avoid, what to befriend and what to distrust, but then does that instinct become that human's laws?

Actually, thinking on it, in that scenario it would only still be that person's rules, since it would not be a mutually agreed upon set of guidelines used to establish relations and protocols between individuals.

Of course, it is possible to reveal a certain communication between biological needs of the person and rules of conduct. However rules nevertheless should be considered as the convention between individuals on certain actions which provide reproduction of society.

Do all rules have to be set between individuals? For example, I may set upon myself the rule to only have 2 cups of coffee a day. While having more or less then 2 cups a day may effect my interaction with other individuals within my society, is it necessarily a convention I have set with other members of my society? Or are obligations one sets on self not necessarily considered rules? If they are would it then be rules should be considered as conventions between individuals or set on self...….

It is necessary to differentiate individual and social rules. Individual rules can include social. If social rules are result of the convention, then individual rules are formed under the influence of personal experience of the person. Social rules are necessary for maintenance of an order. Individual rules are necessary for satisfaction of needs of the person.

Thank you for your answers, I only ask these questions to help reveal and open up statements of thoughts that I can analyse towards better understanding.

Hello Andrey, I am very pleased to meet you. From my observations about rules, seemingly, every culture has a set of social rules, religious rules, family rules about disciplining, marriage, dating, home life, etc. Just as cultures have rules, so that they may have order in race, the wise God in heaven has given us rules to govern our moral actions in society among all races. When we disobey the order that God has established we are destroying a harmoniously union with our Creator that destroys man's mental, spiritual and psychological make up which makes him less like God. Thus, the image of God is out of order and needs to be replaced back in order. When God saw that the intent of man's heart was constantly wicked he repented that he had created man (Genesis 6:5-6). But God still loved man, so he decided he would try to help man. Thus in John 3:16 we find this explanation for the healing or salvation of man from an unorderly world "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but shall have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved." That is that the harmonious rules man shared in Eden can come true once again.

Dear Grant Roberts!

Thanks for your statements!

I was interested in your observations and reflections about essence of rules. The idea about biological conditionality of rules demands further scientific research. However in the modern world nevertheless the social factor of formation of rules becomes more important.

I will be glad to continue communication further!

Dear Faith Bays!

Thanks for your statements. However I consider formation of rules in rational aspect. Not reference to the absolute, but process of formation is more important for my research governed in society.

Hi Andrey,

I was considering the complex layers within rules and was wondering if in attempting to differentiate structure you may end up with a chicken v egg scenario. Take a pet owner for example. That pet owner will structure rules that they expect the pet to follow. Now since the pet will have no formal way to communicate a policy of rules with the owner, it could be said that this is then the owners personal rules that he/she expects of their pet. But a pet owner setting rules is not single phenomenon but a social aspect all pet owners and non-pet owners view as a requirement to have with pets, so now the rule is also a social rule that has individual tailoring and obligatory social requirements. The complex layers of interaction within society may mean a singular defining model maybe somewhat more difficult to approach, thus your chicken v egg problem. Is a social rule born from a group acceptance of an individual rule or do we form our individual rules from the influence of a social norm? What comes first?

Are my social preferences purely the product of absolute influence from outer forces, or do I tailor my society, (my choice of social peers, my choices with whom to interact, what I do etc and so forth) around my personal moral/social/political and ethical views?

Thanks

Grant

Informal rules play a negative role in a person's value system and behavior because they are often uncertain and variable with time and events.

Informal rules play a negative role in a person's value system and behavior because they are often uncertain and variable with time and events.

Dear Shakir Faris Tuleab!

Your opinion is of great importance. However, the role of informal rules is not so straightforward.

1. Having formed in the process of social interaction, they are more likely to take into account social interests than laws.

2. The variability of informal rules allows them to respond to changing situations more quickly than laws.

3. The tendency to formalize informal rules must be taken into account. I mean the creation of codes of ethics. Some of these codes are approved by order of the head of the organization or government agency.

Sincerely, Andrey Skorobogatov

Dear Andrey Skorobogatov the question is very interesting !

Spontaneity leads to convert formal to informal - law of Nature of human beings .

Dear Jaydip Datta!

A very unexpected turn of my question. I looked more at the opposite process - the movement from informal rules to the law. However, your answer is to think about the possibility of moving from law to informal law.

Indeed, the lack of effective legislative regulation forces a person to turn to other rules that can ensure conflict-free coexistence in a society or group.

However, it is necessary to decide how much the state recognizes these rules. Their role in maintaining the order created by the state will depend on this.

Sincerely, Andrey Skorobogatov

Dear Andrey Skorobogatov being a law doctor your can expect that higly .

The term I used Spontaneity ! it is a technical term and also a paradox .

In Indian Scenario I am 100 % honest person not even 99.5 % .

What is Law and Order ?

Who is the law maker & Who is the breaker ?

In Crime Statistics what is the position of India ?

In living a well of most corrupted society the term SPONTANEITY I have compelled to speaks .

Yes in foreign country I am 100 % agree with you but sitting in India for the last

47 yrs are every body will realize my situation . Here opportunists are the law

maker and also breaker .

Dear Jaydip Datta!

Thanks for your reply! The complexity of using concepts to designate a phenomenon in different languages ​​does not allow us to clearly understand the essence of phenomena.

However, the thoughts you have formulated are really extremely important. To a certain extent, the situation of permissiveness, when the state could not ensure order, people solved their issues in informal ways, and the one who paid the most could become the legislator, which was typical for Russia in the 1990s.

It seems to me that ensuring law-based order is possible under a combination of two conditions:

1. The state has an effective regulatory mechanism (high-quality laws and their precise application by state bodies).

2. Society has a high level of legal awareness that guides a person that compliance with formal rules is the only true behavior option that can ensure the achievement of social interests.

Sincerely, Andrey Skorobogatov

Thanks Andrey Skorobogatov for your realization .

During my work experiance for 18 yrs in Indistry & Industry , I cant stay anywhere

due to leg pooling for my honesty . I had a culture from your Industrial / Corporate

law also . After a great frustration during my last journey I left my all assignments being UNEMPLOYED for more than one year . I spent all of my time

with my RG peers .

Dear Jaydip Datta!

Thanks for your reply!

I hope that your efforts will succeed.

Sincerely, Andrey Skorobogatov

I do not think that the unspoken rules adopted in society are determined by individual characteristics or instincts. These codes were more likely to be developed in small communities, allowing people to coexist in a relatively limited space. Therefore, these are closely related to the national mentality, but not only. To a large extent they are determined by the typical life conditions. Same time, these codes of practice differ significantly between urban and rural residents of the same country. The nickname "hillbilly" is given by the townspeople not for origin, but for unwillingness (and ignorance too) to follow the unwritten rules of life in a local city community. I know people who, during 1-2 years, completely “mimicked” and mastered the whole complex of rules for a city dweller (including the dialect), at the same time there are people who, 20 years after moving to the city, demonstrate their “village origin” (and in a certain sense flaunt it). As we say in Russia: "It is easy to take a girl out from the village, but it is impossible to take the village out of the girl".

But these rules differ sharply even among representatives of close type homotopes - for example, citizens of Russia and Italy. The Italians always lived very closely (city walls ...), it always struck me how the Italians move in the crowd - not a single touch... In Russia, you can be sure that if a person is walking towards you on a very wide sidewalk, will push you, in spite of all your efforts to avoid physical contact with him, we behave as if we live on the edge of the forest ... Funny observation - a comfortable distance for Russians in conversation - about 1 meter. For Italians, much less. I caught myself many times that when talking with Italians I was forced to retreat (until I press to the wall), but the interlocutor instantly eliminated the distance I had won ...

People’s annoyance is not even differences in culture or religion, but differences in codes of behavior.

In most cases, we are theoretically tolerant to people of other nationalities, but any clash in real life is fraught with conflicts, primarily because of ignorance of unwritten rules of behavior. Although, of course, the rules of different nations are drawing closer, thanks to contacts and the media. So the Russian city wedding more and more resembles a Caucasian or Gypsy, at best a village one, which does not please me.

I can confirm that experience. As civilized, educated and peace-loving people, academics, we are inclined to attach great importance to tolerance today and to represent it in public. The problem starts when we ourselves, in our circle of life, permanently meet with other ethnicities and nationalities that do not share our religious views, values and moral concepts. The problem occurs strongly in public schools, when children from different ethinities should cooperate closely with each other.

Dear Vadim S. Gorshkov, Hein Retter!

I agree with you that informal rules are formed, first of all, within the framework of a social group. Of the task is to maintain a conflict-free existence of the members of the group and the group as a whole. Of course, their content is associated with national tradition. However, it must be borne in mind that a person can belong to several groups at the same time. In this case, the totality and interpretation in his mind and behavior of the rules of several groups can be called his individual rules.

Sincerely, Andrey Skorobogatov

Informal rules play a large role in a person's value system and behavior where they often have significant negative effects.

Dear Shakir Faris Tuleab!

Of course, informal rules can have negative consequences. However, it must be borne in mind that informal rules appeared before formal ones. If they had only negative consequences, they would not contribute to the development of society. In traditional societies, to date, it is informal rules that are the only source of order. In technogenic societies, these rules as the main ones determine the principles of dormitory in closed groups.

Sincerely, Andrey Skorobogatov

I would like to give a few final considerations clarifying my position, primarily for myself.

First of all, I don’t agree with initiator of the discussion, that there are certain individual rules of existence. For example, I, brought up in a family that can be called intelligent within the Russian tradition. But we lived in one of the most hooligan areas of Yekaterinburg (then Sverdlovsk) - Uralmash. I, unlike many "intelligent children" (some were not even allowed to go out on the street, and even if they were released, they looked very "pale" against the background of the Uralmash "boys") completely adapted to the "street" and was "own" in this gang, although I did not participate in many of the "actions" of this community. After that I was in the Soviet army (there are their own, very specific rules of relations, same time, for example, I was one of the few who calmly communicated with the North Caucasians, who did not change their "mountain" mentality in this community), studied at the university, worked at an academic institute. In addition, I communicate with the "crowd" in stores and in transport. If we add numerous visits to Moscow (where somebody told me that it was impossible to determine my origin from my speech, although most of my fellow countrymen demonstrate a clear "Ural" dialect, which is our "visit card"), St. Petersburg, work in Italy, the USA and private company here, then the question arises: "What informal rules do I follow?" The answer is very simple: "In each situation, I "mimicry" the environment in which I am." I would be nice, for example, in Gdansk, with "individual" rules. The recipe is: "Don’t go to alien monastery with own charter." Therefore, if I come to Minsk, for example, I’m not trying to set my own rules, but simply following the local rules, "not naughty” and just behaving myself decently, which is what I wish everyone.

Dear Vadim S. Gorshkov!

The clarifications you have made are of great importance. Unfortunately, the discussion is conducted in English, which I speak poorly. (Therefore, I duplicate the comment in Russian)

Therefore, some thoughts could not be precisely expressed.

I agree with you that one of the strategies for human behavior is adaptation in the host community, expressed in the adoption and reproduction of their rules. However, there are opposite examples when a small well-organized group imposes its rules on others. This happened in Russia in the 1990s.

As for the individual rules, I do not see them as something unique. I introduce this concept to refer to the rules that are contained in the creation of an individual. However, these are the rules that have formed in the various groups to which it belongs. Those. individual rules are a set of group informal rules reflected in the consciousness of an individual person and transformed by him into his behavior.

Sincerely, Andrey Skorobogatov

Уважаемый Вадим!

Высказанные Вами уточнения имеют большое значение. К сожалению, дискуссия ведется на английском языке, которым я владею плохо. (Поэтому дублирую комментарий на русском языке)

Поэтому некоторые мысли выразить точно не удалось.

Я согласен с Вами, что одной из стратегий поведения человека является адаптация в принимающем сообществе, выражающаяся в принятии и воспроизводстве своих правил. Однако существуют и противоположные примеры, когда небольшая хорошо организованная группа навязывает свои правила окружающим. Это происходило в России в 1990-е годы.

Что касается индивидуальных правил, я не рассматриваю их как что-то уникальное. Я ввожу это понятие для обозначения правил, которые содержатся в создании отдельного человека. Однако это правила, которые сформировались в различных группах, к которым он принадлежит. Т.е. индивидуальные правила - это совокупность групповых неформальных правил, отраженных в сознании отдельного человека и трансформированных им в свое поведение.

С уважением, Андрей Скоробогатов

Unformalized and unwritten social values occupy an important place in the value system, especially for those who are marginal group members for whom these values could be the pinnacle of their value systems. Then such an organization of values will determine the basis of the distinction between the "we" and the "others".

Dear Bourema Kansaye!

Informal rules are really necessary for the group to distinguish between friends and foes. The acceptance by the individual of these rules identifies him with the group.

Sincerely, Andrey Skorobogatov

Informal rules are broader and more law

Dear Mustafa Akram!

Informal rules can influence the law. If the law is based on informal rules, this will increase its effectiveness.

Sincerely, Andrey Skorobogatov

These are also called Customs A Traditions. They play a very important role.