There's also third part: standardization, Schelling points, whatever you call it. Basically, if people know and are expected to follow the same standards of etiquette, it eliminates for everyone a lot of small-scale worries that can be emotionally and cognitively taxing.
In particular, etiquette tells you how to behave in certain situations so that you don't have to worry about offending anyone. This works, because common etiquette means that, if someone does get offended, and you actually followed the protocol, then they are in breach of etiquette and at risk of pushback from their peers.
As a result, this creates a higher-level "game": an easy way to signal whether your intentions are friendly or hostile. You came to play nice? Follow the etiquette. You want to demonstrate your disrespect to someone, or start a conflict? Break etiquette in a conspicuous way. Those are strong, clear signals, which streamline interpersonal interactions, make cooperation easier, and lets people waste less time on thinking how to dance around each other.
Note that for this effect, the behaviors prescribed by the etiquette can, usually are, and arguably should be arbitrary - what matters is that they are clear, conspicuous, and that everyone is using the same rulebook when expecting everyone else to follow it.
Morality, etiquette, “niceness”, and all of these things have been shown many times that one of the reason why they exist is to maintain class hierarchy. Why do we need those things in a positive sum game, when even math tells us that we should hold doors for the next person, and there are clear drawbacks to have etiquette involved? The advice for party is even more interesting because there are always a first and a last, so it’s not avoidable. That “advice” is not about being “nice” at all, it just creates a social stigma.
I view etiquette much like the parent post, but would reframe it in terms of computer things (though it’s similar for diplomacy): it’s protocol, and if you follow it you know what to expect; further, if it’s not followed, the results are undefined.
Want to start talking IP? Send a SYN to an address, expect an ACK, and send a SYN/ACK. If you don’t hear an ACK, … maybe the server didn’t hear you. Or doesn’t like you. Or someone nearby threw your request in the trash. Or someone near them threw your request in the trash. Or the transport doesn’t know how to get it there.
Granted, it’s a leaky abstraction and etiquette and protocol are different in diplomacy, but I just find viewing it through a neutral lens of “shaping my expectations about how this flows” useful.
I think people are mixing too many ideas into "class hierarchy".
Does etiquette help maintain class hierarchy? Definitely - less so now than in the past, when class boundaries were much more clear cut. But does it exist for that purpose? I don't think so. I feel that the primary purpose is to help people navigate existing class hierarchy - make it less of an issue for everyone, without trying to alter the hierarchy itself. Secondly, especially in the past, it helped people within a class to avoid unnecessary inside conflicts.
> Why do we need those things in a positive sum game, when even math tells us that we should hold doors for the next person, and there are clear drawbacks to have etiquette involved?
What positive sum game?
Etiquette is that math, distilled for normal people, packaged in a form that can be easily taught since childhood. Good luck trying to replace manners with game theory - the former may ultimately flow from the latter, but few people will find time and will to learn the latter, while packaged solutions work for everyone and help everyone.
> The advice for party is even more interesting because there are always a first and a last, so it’s not avoidable. That “advice” is not about being “nice” at all, it just creates a social stigma.
It's not creating social stigma, it's observing the one that exists. And it actually exists for a good reason. The "last one to leave the party" in this context doesn't mean just being the last person to leave (as there is always one) - it's about overstaying your welcome. This is how this term is used in casual conversation. "They're always the last one to leave a party" is an euphemism for the person being inconsiderate, pushy, and possibly having a substance abuse problem. Conversely, the advice is meant to remind you that, just because you're having fun and have time to stay, you should not become the solo party guest and thus overstay your welcome.
Also this harks back to my mention about mixing distinct ideas in the concept of "class". Some form of "class structure" is inevitable - it's a direct consequence of natural tendency of humans to socialize and form groups, thus dividing the world into "in-group" and "out-group" categories. But that alone isn't problematic, in the same sense as having aristocracy oppressing the peasants, or an upper class that chills out and despises the capitalists, who in turn indulge themselves and oppress the working class, etc.
It doesn’t matter if that’s it purpose or not. It has that negative effect.
In a lot of places, throwing cigarette butts to anywhere is fine, it’s not part of etiquette. It was never aligned with positive sum game. Using different kind of utensils for different things are not related to game theory at all. You can use a single fork for many things, you don’t need have more. When I ate snails, I got a separate fork for it. My simple fork next to it would have worked exactly the same way. It’s still etiquette.
You’re talking about euphemisms in etiquette, while your reason of etiquette is to avoid unnecessary thinking. These clearly contradict each other.
The “party problem” would be solved with a way better way if there would be fine by etiquette to say to guests to leave. But it doesn’t.
Hiearchy is “natural”. Maintaining any hiearchy? That’s completely on us.
In particular, etiquette tells you how to behave in certain situations so that you don't have to worry about offending anyone. This works, because common etiquette means that, if someone does get offended, and you actually followed the protocol, then they are in breach of etiquette and at risk of pushback from their peers.
As a result, this creates a higher-level "game": an easy way to signal whether your intentions are friendly or hostile. You came to play nice? Follow the etiquette. You want to demonstrate your disrespect to someone, or start a conflict? Break etiquette in a conspicuous way. Those are strong, clear signals, which streamline interpersonal interactions, make cooperation easier, and lets people waste less time on thinking how to dance around each other.
Note that for this effect, the behaviors prescribed by the etiquette can, usually are, and arguably should be arbitrary - what matters is that they are clear, conspicuous, and that everyone is using the same rulebook when expecting everyone else to follow it.