Newsgroup: italia.palermo.discussioni
Titolo: Abbiamo capito tutto

Qualcuno tanti anni fa aveva proposto la "teoria delle finestre rotte":
un ambiente degradato indurrebbe comportamenti antisociali e maggiore
propensione a commettere crimini.
Tre olandesi si sono presi la briga di verificarlo, e la risposta č *sě,
cazzo, sě* gridato fortissimo. Uno dei vari esperimenti che hanno
condotto consisteva nel lasciare volantini attaccati alle bici (sono
olandesi, eh) accanto a un muro che poteva essere pulito o coperto di
graffiti. Nel secondo caso tutti li buttavano a terra. E cosě via.
Insomma, vedere qualcuno che posteggia in seconda fila ha un potere
induttivo enorme nei confronti di altri comportamenti antisociali.
Kees Keizer, Siegwart Lindenberg, Linda Steg
"The Spreading of Disorder"
Science, Vol. 322. no. 5908, pp. 1681 - 1685
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5908/1681
Se riesco a ricomporre il testo che č su piů colonne e viene un casino
ve lo copincollo.
Ciao
-- 
Francesco Giannici
he was whistling something
complicated, twelve-tone

 ve lo copincollo.
E' andata meglio del previsto. Si legge anche con una certa facilità.
Voilà, a costo zero direttamente nelle vostre case, signori, vi porto
*la curtura*.
The Spreading of Disorder
Kees Keizer,* Siegwart Lindenberg, Linda Steg
Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Gro- 
ningen, 9712 TS Groningen, Netherlands. 
SCIENCE, 2008, 322, 1681
Imagine that the neighborhood you are living in is covered with
graffiti, litter, and unreturned 
shopping carts. Would this reality cause you to litter more, trespass,
or even steal? A thesis known 
as the broken windows theory suggests that signs of disorderly and petty
criminal behavior trigger 
more disorderly and petty criminal behavior, thus causing the behavior
to spread. This may cause 
neighborhoods to decay and the quality of life of its inhabitants to
deteriorate. For a city 
government, this may be a vital policy issue. But does disorder really
spread in neighborhoods? 
So far there has not been strong empirical support, and it is not clear
what constitutes disorder 
and what may make it spread. We generated hypotheses about the spread of
disorder and 
tested them in six field experiments. We found that, when people observe
that others violated a 
certain social norm or legitimate rule, they are more likely to violate
other norms or rules, which 
causes disorder to spread. 
In the mid-1990s, the mayor of New York and
his police commissioner adopted a "Quality 
of life campaign." Attention was focused on 
fighting signs of disorder and petty crime. Graffiti 
was removed, streets were swept, and signs of 
vandalism were cleared. This initiative was based 
on the broken windows theory (BWT) of Wilson 
and Kelling (1). The BWT suggests that signs of 
induce other (types of) disorder and petty crime 
(2). It was thought that removing these signs of 
disorder would take away an important trigger of 
disorderly and petty criminal behavior. After the 
introduction of the campaign, petty crime rates in 
New York dropped. Since then, approaches based 
on the BWT have become popular and have been 
adopted worldwide (e.g., in various cities in the 
United States, Great Britain, Netherlands, Indonesia, 
and South Africa). 
BWT may be very popular, but it is also 
highly controversial. So far, it lacks empirical 
support, and it fails to specify what constitutes 
disorder. Studies aimed to test the BWT (3-6) 
have provided mixed results at best. The National 
Research Council (NRC) concluded that the re- 
search did not provide strong support for the BWT 
(7). There is also little evidence that broken win- 
dow policing contributed to the sharp decrease in 
petty crime in New York (8-10). Moreover, to our 
knowledge, research on the BWT has so far been 
correlational, so conclusions about causality are 
shaky (6, 8). The BWT suggests that a setting with 
disorder triggers disorderly and petty criminal be- 
havior, but it might be the other way around or both 
may be caused by a third variable. Furthermore, the 
BWT gives no insight into what is and what is not 
a condition of disorder that will spread. Because the 
BWT forms the backbone of many cities' defense 
against the growing threat of disorder and petty 
crime, these shortcomings need to be addressed. 
In the present study, we conducted six field 
experiments that address these issues. Our first 
step was to conceptualize a disorderly setting in 
such a way that we can link it to a process of 
spreading norm violations. Social norms refer ei- 
ther to the perception of common (dis)approval 
of a particular kind of behavior (injunctive norm) 
or to a particular behavior common in a setting 
(descriptive norm) (11-16). Injunctive norms af- 
fect behavior because they provide information 
about which behavior is most appropriate in a 
given situation [e.g., (17-19)]. For example, the 
antilitter norm is a widely held injunctive norm 
[e.g., (20, 21)]. The extent to which an injunctive 
norm affects behavior depends on how much the 
norm is on people's mind (22, 23). For example, 
an antilitter norm will be more on people's minds 
when they see someone picking up a piece of 
litter (which shows disapprovement of littering) 
(12) or simply see a norm stated on a sign (24, 25). 
Descriptive norms affect behavior because they 
provide information about which behavior is most 
common in a given situation. For example, a lit- 
tered setting shows that it is common to litter and 
will therefore enhance littering (11, 26, 27). Sim- 
ilar to injunctive norms, the more conspicuous the 
descriptive norm, the more strongly it influences 
behavior. For example, the probability that a par- 
ticipant litters in a littered setting is enhanced when 
a lot of litter is present or when the participant 
watches someone littering (11). Injunctive and 
descriptive norms can be in conflict, as for ex- 
ample in a setting where it is common to litter 
even though littering is commonly disapproved 
of. Thus, settings described in BWT as disorderly 
(e.g., a littered setting) can be conceptualized as 
settings in which descriptive and injunctive norms 
are in conflict. The next question then is how 
behavior is influenced by such a setting. 
Injunctive-norm information in a persuasive 
message is more effective when accompanied 
by descriptive norm information that is in align- 
ment rather than in conflict with that message 
(24, 28-30). For example, a sign drawing atten- 
tion to the antilitter norm is more influential in 
reducing littering when placed in a nonlittered 
setting than when it is placed in a prelittered 
setting (31). Thus, a setting with graffiti, described 
by the BWT as a setting showing disorder, can 
cause the spraying of graffiti because it inhibits 
the injunctive antigraffiti norm. In honor of the 
individual who first described this process, we 
call this the Cialdini effect. The important ques- 
tion for the BWT is whether or not it also causes 
disorderly (or petty criminal) behavior in general. 
The question we will address is the following: Do 
more people litter or even steal in a setting where 
the antigraffiti norm (injunctive norm) is in con- 
flict with the descriptive norm (setting shows it is 
common to spray graffiti)? 
The Cialdini effect has its basis in people's 
tendency to reason "if a lot of people are doing 
this, it's probably a wise thing to do" and to do 
what they observe others are doing (32) Howev- 
er, we believe that there is another, goal-driven 
mechanism at work as well, which is particularly 
important for the spread of disorder. Much con- 
formity to injunctive norms is the result of people 
pursuing the goal to act appropriately. However, 
people can also pursue a hedonic goal directed at 
feeling better right now or a gain goal directed at 
guarding and improving one's resources. All three 
goals can be in conflict, and the weakening of one 
is likely to bring another goal to the fore (33). In 
a given situation, the goal to act appropriately is 
weakened when people observe that others seem- 
ingly did (or do) not pursue the goal to act ap- 
propriately. In turn, a weakening of this goal 
strengthens conflicting hedonic and gain goals. 
For example, when people observe that others 
have painted graffiti where it should not have 
been painted, they actually observe inappropriate 
behavior. This, we predict, weakens their concern 
for appropriateness and strengthens the goal to do 
what makes them feel good (for example, by being 
lazy and throwing paper on the street) or the goal 
to gain resources (say by stealing). Thus people 
don't necessarily copy the inappropriate behavior 
they observe but let concerns other than appro- 
priateness take center stage. In this way, one norm 
violation fosters violations of other norms, and 
disorder spreads from one kind of inappropriate 
behavior to other kinds. We call this the cross- 
norm inhibition effect. An important implication 
of this "goal-framing" theory for the BWT is that 
the effect should not be limited to social norms in 
the strict sense of the word but would also apply 
to all sorts of legitimate rules, such as laws, police 
ordinances, or even legitimate rules established 
by private companies. 
To test this theory, we conducted controlled 
field experiments in common public spaces (34), 
that is, in locations where ordinary "broken 
window" kind of disorder could be observed. 
Participants were people in the public space 
judged to be 18 years or older. There were no 
signs in any of the studies that they were aware of 
being observed by the experimenter. We distin- 
guished between a contextual norm (which the 
participant witnessed having been violated) and a 
target norm (a violation committed by the partici- 
pant).What we manipulated were the indications 
that the contextual norm was being violated. What 
we observed as a dependent variable was the rel- 
ative number of individuals who then violated the 
target norm, which was inconvenient or costly 
to follow in this situation. We predicted that 
disorder (violation of contextual norm) would 
spread (violation of target norm). To study the 
robustness of this cross-norm inhibition effect, 
we conducted six different studies. For ease of 
description, let us call the situation in which the 
contextual norm is violated (i.e., inappropriate 
behavior by others is being displayed) the dis- 
order condition and the one in which it is not 
violated the order condition. Other factors pos- 
sibly influencing the results were kept constant 
between conditions (no signs of other norm or 
rule violations, same weather conditions, and 
same period of the day). A confederate posted 
out of sight observed whether participants did 
or did not violate the target norm. Gender was 
coded at first but turned out not to have any 
impact on the results and was dropped in later 
experiments. The arrangements in all experiments 
were such that it was virtually impossible for 
people not to notice the violations of injunctive 
norms (such as graffiti, wrongly parked bicy- 
cles, and firecrackers). 
In study 1, the setting was an alley in Gro- 
ningen located in a shopping area and commonly 
used to park bicycles. In the order condition, the 
walls of the alley were clean (Fig. 1A), whereas 
in the disorder condition they were covered with 
graffiti (Fig. 1B). A standard prohibition sign (a 
round red sign with a round white center) with 
the text "Graffiti" pointed out the disapproved 
behavior. The sign was highly noticeable, and 
every subject entering the setting at least glanced 
at it. Participants (N = 77 in each condition) were 
all people who came to collect their parked bi- 
cycles. In their absence, a flyer with an elastic 
band had been attached to the handlebar of their 
bicycle. The flyer was white and thus very no- 
ticeable. It read: "We wish everybody happy hol- 
idays," signed with the name of a nonexistent 
sportswear shop. The flyer had to be removed by 
the participant to easily use the handlebar. Be- 
cause there were no trash cans in the alley, "not 
littering" meant taking the flyer with them. We 
counted throwing the flyer on the ground or hang- 
ing it on another bicycle as littering. 
The cross-norm inhibition effect of violating 
the antigraffiti norm on littering was quite sub- 
stantial. Of the participants in the order condition 
(nongraffiti), 33% littered compared with 69% of 
the participants in the disorder condition (graffiti 
on the walls). The difference is highly significant 
[c2(1, 154) = 20.367, P < 0.001]. In Groningen, 
littering is generally tolerated by the police so 
that the effect could not be explained by a guess 
on law enforcement, such as "if people haven't 
been caught painting graffiti, I will not be caught 
dropping paper." 
We designed the next studies to include a 
variety of norms in order to address two ques- 
tions. We wanted to determine whether the cross- 
norm inhibition effect was restricted to generally 
accepted social norms or whether, as expected by 
the goal-framing theory, it also extended to local 
ordinances by the police or even to normative 
requests set up by private companies. We also 
wanted to determine how far the influence would 
go. In other words, would a norm violation just 
affect relatively light infractions, such as littering, 
or would it go so far as to affect the willingness to 
violate such serious norms as "thou shalt not steal"? 
For study 2, we used a police ordinance as a 
contextual norm and "no trespassing" (as ordered 
by the police) as the target norm in the setting of a 
car park. Thus, both contextual and target norms 
were not general social norms but rules set up by 
the local police for a particular local situation. A 
temporary fence (set up by us) closed off the main 
entrance for people who came to pick up their car, 
but a gap of about 50 cm was left open in the 
fence (Fig. 2). We attached two signs to the tem- 
porary fence just 60 cm apart and directly next to 
the gap. The right sign (our contextual norm) in- 
dicated that it was prohibited to lock bicycles to 
the fence. The left sign (our target norm) made 
clear that it was prohibited to use this entrance 
and that people had to use an alternative entrance 
to the car park, which required walking a 200-m 
detour. In the order condition, four bicycles stand- 
ing 1 m before the fence were ostensibly not 
locked to the fence. 
In the disorder condition, four bicycles were 
locked to the fence for everyone to see. The de- 
pendent variable was whether pedestrians con- 
formed to the "no throughway" sign (the target
norm) and walked the 200-m detour to the tem- 
porary entrance that was pointed out by the sign. 
Violating the "no throughway" ordinance meant 
stepping through the gap in the fence. Subjects (N = 
44 in the order condition and N = 49 in the dis- 
order condition) were all people who came to col- 
lect their car from the car park. A group of people 
approaching the fence was counted as one subject. 
Again there was a clear cross-norm inhibition 
effect. Of the participants in the order condition 
(where bicycles were not locked to the fence), 
27% stepped through the gap in the fence, com- 
pared with 82% of the participants in the disorder 
condition (where the bicycles were attached to the 
fence). The difference is significant [c2(1, 93) = 
27.791, P < 0.001]. 
Would this also hold for a rule set by a private 
company that is not enforced with sanctions? In 
study 3, a parking garage adjacent to a supermar- 
ket and health club was used in which the con- 
textual norm established by the private company 
is to return shopping carts to the supermarket 
after loading groceries into one's car. A very vis- 
ible sticker with the text: "please return your 
shopping carts" attached to the entrance doors of 
the parking garage focused attention on this nor- 
mative request (Fig. 3). In the order condition, the 
garage was clear of shopping carts that were not 
returned. In the disorder condition, there were 
four unreturned shopping carts standing around 
in disarray. The (unreturned) carts used in the dis- 
order condition had no coin deposit system, so 
people were not financially encouraged to return 
them. To discourage people who just arrived from 
using the shopping carts and thus removing the 
disorder, we smeared the handle bars of the carts 
with petroleum jelly. Participants (N = 60 in each 
condition) were visitors of the supermarket and a 
health club who came to collect their car from the 
multilevel parking garage. Only people not using 
a shopping cart were included. The target norm 
was the anti-litter norm, already used in study 1. 
The dependent variable was whether or not par- 
ticipants who returned to their car littered a flyer 
(the same flyer as used in study 1) that was placed 
under the driver's side windshield wiper of their 
parked car. The results show that even with this 
private request, a considerable cross-norm inhibi- 
tion effect could be observed. Of the participants 
in the condition without shopping carts, 30% lit- 
tered the flyer, compared with 58% of the partici- 
pants in the condition for which unreturned shopping 
carts were present. The difference is significant 
[c2(1, 120) = 9.766, P = 0.002]. 
Is disorder only linked to visual cues of norm 
violation? Would the cross-norm inhibition effect 
be of any influence when the contextual norm 
was merely audible? In our fourth study, we fo- 
cused on a national law as a contextual norm. In 
Netherlands it is prohibited by law (with a €60 
fine) to set off fireworks in the weeks before New 
Year's Eve. We wanted to find out, 2 weeks be- 
fore New Year's Day, whether an offense against 
this national law would induce people to litter. In 
contrast to studies 1 to 3, the contextual norm was 
not made conspicuous (say by a sign stating the 
law). The law about fireworks is well known, and 
its violation itself would immediately make the 
law salient in people's mind. The setting we used 
was a bicycle shed located near a busy train sta- 
tion. The subjects (N = 50 in the order condition 
and N = 46 in the disorder condition) were all 
people who came to collect their parked bicycle. 
In the order condition, there was no sound of 
fireworks. In the disorder condition, we set off 
firecrackers (well within hearing distance of the 
participants but out of sight to prevent any visual 
cues). We observed whether participants littered a 
flyer (the same flyer as used in studies 1 and 3) 
attached to the handlebar of their bicycle. Of the 
subjects in the order condition (no fireworks set 
off), 52% littered the flyer compared with 80% of 
the subjects that heard fireworks being set off as 
they entered the bicycle shed. The difference is 
significant [c2(1,96) = 8.587, P = 0.003]. 
For studies 5 and 6, the target norm was 
stealing, and we examined whether an envelope, 
visibly containing a €5 note and hanging out of a 
mailbox, would be stolen more often if a con- 
textual norm was violated. The white (addressed) 
window envelope sticking out of a mailbox (sit- 
uated in Groningen) was very noticeable for every- 
one approaching the mailbox, and it was clearly 
visible that the envelope contained a €5 note (Fig. 
4). The participants were all people who singly 
passed the mailbox on foot (and the few who 
actually posted a letter). We conducted a baseline 
order condition (N = 71) in which the mailbox was 
not covered with graffiti and the ground around the 
mailbox was clean. We then conducted two 
disorder conditions: one in which the mailbox 
was covered with graffiti without litter on the 
ground (N = 60, study 5) and one in which there 
was no graffiti on the mailbox but the space around 
the mailbox was littered (N = 72, study 6). The 
circumstances of all three conditions in term of 
period of the day and weather were held constant. 
The dependent variable was whether or not people 
would steal the envelope. Leaving the envelope or 
pushing it into the mailbox was considered not 
stealing. Opening the envelope or taking it was 
considered stealing. Thus, we compared two 
disorder conditions to the baseline condition. 
The study 5 results were quite dramatic. Of 
the participants in the baseline order condition 
(no graffiti, no littering), 13% stole the enve- 
lope compared with 27% of the subjects in the 
graffiti disorder condition. The difference is sig- 
nificant [c2(1, 131) = 4.122, P = 0.035]. 
The results of study 5 proved to be robust. 
Compared with the baseline order condition (in 
which 13% stole the envelope), 25% of the sub- 
jects in study 6 stole the envelope in the litter 
disorder condition. The difference is again signif- 
icant [c2(1, 143) = 3.545, P = 0.047]. It is highly 
unlikely that this effect is due to a guess about the 
likelihood of law enforcement triggered by litter- 
ing. People are not likely to infer a low likelihood 
of law enforcement against stealing from the fact 
that people littered the street, because in Groningen 
littering is generally tolerated by the police whereas 
stealing is not. The most likely interpretation of 
these results is, as before, that one disorder (graffiti 
or littering) actually fostered a new disorder (stealing) 
by weakening the goal of acting appropriately. 
Our conclusion is that, as a certain norm- 
violating behavior becomes more common, it will 
negatively influence conformity to other norms 
and rules. The effect was not limited to social 
norms but also applied to police ordinances and 
even to legitimate requests established by private 
companies. The mere presence of graffiti more 
than doubled the number of people littering and
stealing. There is a clear message for policy- 
makers and police officers: Early disorder diag- 
nosis and intervention are of vital importance 
when fighting the spread of disorder. Signs of 
inappropriate behavior like graffiti or broken win- 
dows lead to other inappropriate behavior (e.g., 
litter or stealing), which in turn results in the in- 
hibition of other norms (i.e., a general weakening 
of the goal to act appropriately). So once disorder 
has spread, merely fixing the broken windows or 
removing the graffiti may not be sufficient 
anymore. An effective intervention should now 
address the goal to act appropriately on all fronts.
References and Notes 
1. J. Q. Wilson, G. L. Kelling, "Broken windows," Atl. Mon. 
(March 1982), p. 29. 
2. M. Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can 
Make a Big Difference (Little, Brown, Boston, 2000). 
3. W. G. Skogan, Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral 
of Decay in American Neighborhoods (Univ. of California 
Press, Berkeley, 1990). 
4. G. Kelling, C. Coles, Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring 
Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities 
(Free Press, New York, 1996). 
5. G. L. Kelling, W. H. Sousa Jr., Do Police Matter? An 
Analysis of the Impact of New York City's Police Reforms 
(Manhattan Institute Center for Civic Innovation Civic 
Report No. 22, New York, 2001). 
6. R. J. Sampson, S. W. Raudenbush, Am. J. Sociol. 105, 
603 (1999). 
7. National Research Council, Fairness and Effectiveness in 
Policing: The Evidence, W. Skogan, K. Frydl, Eds. 
(National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2004). 
8. B. E. Harcourt, Mich. Law Rev. 97, 291 (1998). 
9. J. E. Eck, E. R. Maguire, in The Crime Drop in America, 
A. Blumstein, J. Wallman, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 
New York, 2000), pp. 207-265. 
10. B. E. Harourt, J. Ludwig, Univ. Chic. Law Rev. 73, 271 
(2006). 
11. R. B. Cialdini, R. R. Reno, C. A. Kallgren, J. Pers. Soc. 
Psychol. 58, 1015 (1990). 
12. R. B. Cialdini, C. A. Kallgren, R. R. Reno, Adv. Exp. Soc. 
Psychol. 24, 201 (1991). 
13. R. B. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion 
(Morrow, New York, ed. 2, 1993). 
14. J. P. Codol, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 5, 457 (1975). 
15. J. M. Marques, D. Abrams, D. Páez, C. Martinez-Taboada, 
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75, 976 (1998). 
16. L. S. Shaffer, J. Mind Behav. 4, 275 (1983). 
17. S. Chaiken, R. Giner-Sorolla, S. Chen, in The Psychology 
of Action: Linking Motivation and Cognition to Behavior, 
P. M. Gollwitzer, J. A. Bargh, Eds. (Guilford, New York, 
1996), pp. 553-578. 
18. R. B. Cialdini, M. R. Trost, in Handbook of Social Psychology, 
D. Gilber, S. Fiske, G. Lindzey, Eds. (McGraw-Hill, Boston, 
ed. 4, 1998), vol. 2, pp. 151-192. 
19. M. Deutsch, H. B. Gerard, J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 51, 
629 (1955). 
20. L. Berkowitz, Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 6, 63 (1972). 
21. L. Bickman, Soc. Psychol. 87, 323 (1972). 
22. R. R. Reno, R. B. Cialdini, C. A. Kallgren, J. Pers. Soc. 
Psychol. 64, 104 (1993). 
23. S. H. Schwartz, J. A. Fleishman, Soc. Psychol. 41, 306 
(1978). 
24. R. B. Cialdini, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12, 105 (2003). 
25. P. L. Winter, J. S. Brad, K. Rhoads, D. W. Barrett, 
R. B. Cialdini, Environ. Manage. 26, 589 (2000). 
26. R. M. Krauss, J. L. Freedman, M. Whitcup, J. Exp. Soc. 
Psychol. 14, 109 (1978). 
27. W. C. Finnie, Environ. Behav. 5, 123 (1973). 
28. R. B. Cialdini et al., Soc. Influence 1, 3 (2006). 
29. R. N. Rimal, M. K. Lapinski, R. J. Cook, K. Real, J. Health 
Commun. 10, 433 (2005). 
30. P. W. Schultz, A. M. Khazian, A. Zaleski, Soc. Influence 4, 
4 (2008). 
31. S. M. Reiter, W. Samuel, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 10, 45 
(1980). 
32. R. B. Cialdini, Psychometrika 72, 263 (2007). 
33. S. Lindenberg, L. Steg, J. Soc. Issues 63, 117 (2007). 
34. Materials and methods are available as supporting 
material on Science Online. 
35. We thank the University of Groningen for providing us 
the necessary means to complete this project. We also 
thank J. W. Bolderdijk, T. Postmes, J. A. Rothengatter, 
J. Thøgersen, and four anonymous reviewers for their 
helpful comments. 
Supporting Online Material 
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5908/1681/DC1
 
Materials and Methods 
5 June 2008; accepted 31 October 2008 
10.1126/science.1161405 
Poi quando l'AAAS mi fa mettere in galera per violazione del copirait
venitemi a portare le arance.


 maggiore propensione a commettere crimini.
non capisco il condizionale, mi pare la scoperta dell'acqua calda
-- 
ciao
Vittorix 

 wrote:

Il condizionale è dovuto al fatto che era una pura congettura non
corroborata da osservazioni quantitative. Quello che distingue le
chiacchiere da bar del "secondo me" (ipad) dalla conoscenza il più
possibile oggettiva acquisita con il metodo scientifico (science)
consiste nella formulazione di teorie (falsificabili) che poi vengono
confermate o contraddette da un esperimento. Questi qua, invece di
coltivare tulipani o tirare su una diga, hanno fatto degli esperimenti
(in effetti abbastanza banali, però evidentemente nessuno ci aveva
pensato prima, altrimenti non le avrebbero mandate a Science) e le hanno
confermate. Secondo me sarebbe stato altrettanto eclatante se le
avessero confutate completamente.
Insomma, non dico che comincerò a guardare con occhio diverso il
cassonetto tracimante o la firma dell'australopiteco sul muro, che mi
urtano già senza bisogno di Science, però insomma, è sempre bello quando
la conoscenza scientifica mette un tassello di comprensione del mondo
(come quando ho appreso che non c'è nessuna relazione provata fra
prendere freddo e prendere il raffreddore/influenza). Nello specifico,
ora so che la firma dello stronzo A sul muro fa diventare ancora più
pernicioso lo stronzo B, magari mio vicino di casa, che con lo stronzo A
non ha niente a che vedere. Una corrispondenza di amorosi stronzi.
Nello specifico, ho visto questo articolo appeso da capi (olandesi) per
spingere i sottoposti a tenere il loro spazio lavorativo in ordine (in
modo da prevenire crimini sul posto di lavoro, immagino). 


 caso tutti li buttavano a terra. E cosě via.
Bah, detto cosě metodologicamente mi lascia un
pň perplesso, perň sono curioso di leggere l'articolo,
e anzi ti ringrazio per averlo postato (non so se ho un
accesso a Science a portata di mano...).
A.D.
P.S. Tutto ciň mi ricorda "Una Poltrona per Due"... :-)

 propensione a commettere crimini.
Ah si? Ma tu guarda... non lo sapevamo...
Ma se č da anni che sostengo questa "teoria", anche se la chiamo "Teoria del 
Palermitano che va per turismo nei Paesi Civili e torna raccontando che lě 
non si vede mai una carta per terra, ma mentre lo racconta, scendendo la 
scaletta dell'aereo a Punta Raisi, scarta una caramella e butta la carta 
sulla pista"
Mi hanno mai pubblicato su Science, a me?
Bah...

 Ah si? Ma tu guarda... non lo sapevamo...
Minchia, n'atra cinnč.
A.D., attacca.


 ordine (in modo da prevenire crimini sul posto di lavoro, immagino).
e magari credi che questa imposizione funzionera' a rendere tutti onesti, 
mentre invece creare un clima di fiducia come c'e' in ufficio da noi, 
nonostante il mio desktop disordinato, in cui puoi lasciare portafogli e 
cellulare incustoditi e sai che nessuno ti tocca niente, non funziona
-- 
ciao
Vittorix 

 cellulare incustoditi e sai che nessuno ti tocca niente, non funziona
e vabbè, ma è risaputo che a Chicago ce l'avete tutti più lungo.... 

 A.D., attacca.
Buono... buono... bello AD... 

 Buono... buono... bello AD...
Arrrrg.... (Bau!)
A.D.

 nelle vostre case, signori, vi porto *la curtura*.
Davvero interessante! Mi è piaciuto! Si possono trarre
un sacco di conclusioni e di idee veramente fiche da
quei risultati*... Andrebbe appizzato negli uffici di tutti
gli assessori e tatuato sulla pelle di qualsiasi sindaco
vinca le prossime elezioni. Anzi, propongo di usarlo
come test: alle prossime elezioni lo si fa leggere e
commentare ai candidati, e si vota chi lo capisce e
lo commenta in maniera intelligente...
A.D.
* Ovviamente quei risultati non significano che gli abitanti
di un quartiere malfamato diventano dei damerini se si fa
un pò di pulizia, ne che l'essere scanazzato dipende dal
degrado del quartiere: significano solo che se uno può
scegliere tra due alternative, e quella "buona" è la più
faticosa, si è meno incentivati a scegliere quella faticosa
se l'ambiente trasmette il messaggio che non ne vale la
pena. L'ambiente degradato funge solo da disincentivo.
L'azione negativa poi instaura un feedbak positivo (che
di fatto è negativo, essendo un "circolo vizioso"... :-) ).
Questo meccanismo funziona solo se le due scelte sono
quasi equivalenti. E' chiaro che se a uno non è mai passto
per la testa di gettare le carte le cestino, non sarà
l'ambiente pulito a fargli cambiare stile di vita... Anzi,
si potrebbe ipotizzare l'effetto contrario: che per giustificare
il suo comportamento sia portato a sporcare di proposito
l'ambiente! :-)

 A.D., attacca.
Ma piuttosto, tu che ti trastulli lassů con le beamlines,
la sai la storia del "Futuro in Ricerca", vero? Se ci
rientri e sei interessato e non lo sapessi e/o non l'hai
ancora fatto, devi comunicarlo entro oggi al settore
ricerca dell'uni (dai, hai ancora 4 ore...).
A.D.

 e vabbè, ma è risaputo che a Chicago ce l'avete tutti più lungo....
Sarà contenta mia cugina...
vavin 

 dire.
non quando le cose sono talmente evidenti che ci si puo' dedicare piu' 
fruttivamente ad altro.
come l'amico di Giannici che sosteneva che inutile che fai le strade larghe 
tanto ci si accumulera' sempre traffico
-- 
ciao
Vittorix 

 cellulare incustoditi e sai che nessuno ti tocca niente, non funziona
Sì, comunque io ischerzavo quando parlavo degli olandesi, ma è mai
possibile che bisogna metterti un disclaimer ogni tre palore?
Lo sanno tutti che, ordinati o disordinati, qua quelli che ti fottono le
cose sono i neGri delle pulizie.


 Per te che sei incigniere i numeri dovrebbero contare più dei sentito dire.
Ma se non ve la fidate a fare andare avanti un wifi. :))
Comunque, FYI, adesso ho raccolto altre informazioni: mi trovo
attualmente nel punto A2, analogo al punto A ma da esso distante circa
300 metri. La fenomenologia è la stessa del punto A, compreso il MAC
incriminato (che a questo punto mi sa essere legato all'AP e non a un
altro laptop, a meno di non avere qualcuno che mi pedina in giro per
l'anello). Invece nel punto B scricchia come prima.


 ricerca dell'uni (dai, hai ancora 4 ore...).
Non posso, sto già partecipando al progetto "Futuro in culo": lo
conosci? (Cmq no, non rientro in quanto non ancora possessore di piece
of paper per alcune settimane).


 "Futuro in culo": lo conosci?
ROTFLASTMC!!!
A.D.

"A.D." <isd...@libero.ix> ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:1b_il.173598$Ca.3...@twister2.libero.it...

stmc = sta minchia?
cmq sull'argomento vi omaggio delle tavole di Stefano Disegni apparse su 
Linus dello scorso novembre
(spero che i link funzio Nino)
(parte prima) 
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/261/poveracci1un4.jpg
(parte seconda) 
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9896/poveracci2of3.jpg
 

 novembre (spero che i link funzio Nino)
Mi ricorda quando ho fatto il servizio civile, che
mi sono trovato all'improvviso a fare il portiere
ed il centralinista presso un ente pubblico... Non
l'avevo mai fatto prima e all'inizio la cosa č stata
comica perchč ci mettevo lo stesso zelo che metto
nel mio lavoro... C'erano i dipendenti che mi
guardavano stupiti, ed a un certo punto mi hanno
spiegato che non funziona cosě da quelle parti,
č tutto moooolto piů rilassato, altrimenti ci si stanca...
Un giorno si chiede di andare in bagno e ci si
arricampa dopo due ore, un altro c'č una riunione
sindacale, un altro si sta a sparlare con la collega,
il giorno dopo riunione sindacale di nuovo... :-)
A.D.

 biscotto nel tč.
aspetto con ansia qualcuno che risolva la tavoletta del water
-- 
ciao
Vittorix