algorithmic feeds in a sense might be thought of as permitting common knowledge about what people think not completely clear they do this but spose its the case
-
Show this thread
-
eigenrobot Retweeted eigenrobot
this collapses beliefs about the distribution of other peoples beliefs to the "true" distribution. everyone knows what everyone else thinks at any given time and maybe this happenshttps://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1299148115446910977?t=71biANUDhbtdaVgs3PVsbg&s=19 …
eigenrobot added,
eigenrobot @eigenrobotwonder if you can get to a separating cascade like this 1. People start divided a bit 2. Mild scissor statement drives some separation when they see other people disagree 3. People start thinking other people are crazy and get nervous and separate more Iterate on 2 and 3Show this thread4 replies 2 retweets 32 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @eigenrobot
What is the working model for this? 2 axes and 2 points chasing each other is what I've seen. Just an X or Y shift to manipulate? only two variables? What am I trying to google?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MinderbinderLLC
uh well i think you can get a lot of it from the first few chapters of Private Truths, Public Lies separating equilibria is trickier. not sure where to learn that outside of a contract theory textbook
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot
is it like t testing to find appropriate axes or something? I think everything is the same thing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MinderbinderLLC
its well not at all tbh :) are you familiar with the idea of a fixed point? basically imagine some set of individuals I each with expressed opinions Xi that depend on ones beliefs about others' opinions, ie Xi = f(Xhat,-i)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot @MinderbinderLLC
in something closer to English the opinion you express about a topic is going to depend partly on what you think other people believe about that topic, and you develop beliefs about what other people think by what opinions THEY express, which in turn each depend on their beliefs
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot @MinderbinderLLC
generally the extent to which peoples expressed opinions deviate from their true opinions depends on how much social sanction or punishment they expect they might receive from expressing their actual opinion
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot @MinderbinderLLC
in "open" societies where people can basically say what they want without retribution peoples expressed opinions are relatively reliable and stable over time
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot @MinderbinderLLC
in societies where the wrong opinion gets you killed people tend to parrot the party line, and have no way of determining how many other people agree with them, because of course no one is gonna speak up but this can lead to explosive results
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
consider a giant public march. in the US mostly no one gives a shit because everyone knows that say a hundred thousand people can be found to believe just about anything. march basically has no effect on expressed opinion
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot @MinderbinderLLC
in eg Red China such a march might be *incredibly dangerous* to the regime because it would be public undeniable evidence that a lot of people hate the regime, which then leads to other people seeing support so THEY speak up, etc such is called a preference cascade
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot @MinderbinderLLC
anyway the main point with all of this is that maybe social media disrupts an earlier equilibrium state of expressed beliefs, suddenly lots of people express different things and so other people change what they express, etc some kind of cascade is possible maybe who knows
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.