<p>Why when someone violates the laws of a game we remember them above the winner and other participants? What theory is attributable to this - I am not willing to attribute this to mere anomaly detection since by this assumption, we'd equally remember the winner. My hypothesis is that since we are social animals, and we have evolved to observe social rules that govern our behaviour (both unwritten and written), when a game is played and someone violates the underlying rules/law, this consequently goes against our fundamental formulation of social interaction thus making us remember this anomaly. It also goes against our deepest instincts as abiding social rules was critical for human survival.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-09T08:14:09.020Z
terms recalled are [stranger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(essay)) by sociologist Georg Simmel, then the following study on **marginal man**, both focused on individuals struggling between cultures. A more related concept is [deviance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviance_(sociology)), about violating social norms, discussed mostly on the action itself not why we remember such behavior but surely provide some insights. E.g., according to Durkheim, fatalistic suicide occurs owing to too much social regulation, which people may reasonate.
Maul Seil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-09T16:22:46.950Z
Violating rules of a game does not make one a "liar", rather it makes one a "cheater".  Correspondingly, check out the "[cheater-detection mechanism](http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/antisocial-behavior/cheater-detection/)" for standard hypotheses.
Arnon Weinberg
<social-psychology><social-networks>
Is there a theory explaining why we remember liars?
John
# Is there a theory explaining why we remember liars?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-08-08)

Why when someone violates the laws of a game we remember them above the winner and other participants? What theory is attributable to this - I am not willing to attribute this to mere anomaly detection since by this assumption, we'd equally remember the winner. My hypothesis is that since we are social animals, and we have evolved to observe social rules that govern our behaviour (both unwritten and written), when a game is played and someone violates the underlying rules/law, this consequently goes against our fundamental formulation of social interaction thus making us remember this anomaly. It also goes against our deepest instincts as abiding social rules was critical for human survival.

**Tags:** social-psychology, social-networks

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: terms recalled are [stranger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(essay)) by sociologist Georg Simmel, then the following study on **marginal man**, both focused on individuals struggling between cultures. A more related concept is [deviance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviance_(sociology)), about violating social norms, discussed mostly on the action itself not why we remember such behavior but surely provide some insights. E.g., according to Durkheim, fatalistic suicide occurs owing to too much social regulation, which people may reasonate.  
> **username_2**: Violating rules of a game does not make one a "liar", rather it makes one a "cheater".  Correspondingly, check out the "[cheater-detection mechanism](http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/antisocial-behavior/cheater-detection/)" for standard hypotheses.  

---

## 0 answers

