So many of my favorite people are independent thinkers: they seek their own data and derive their own (tentative) conclusions. Recently, however, I realized that such people — we? — are a handicap to factions we’re a part of. Let me try to explain.
-
Show this thread
-
Suppose the leaders of three factions — A, B, and C — are meeting to hash out some deal. The A and B factions are full of sheep (easily herded), while the C faction is mostly cats (famously not).
1 reply 0 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
A and B will find it relatively easy to bargain with each other. Crucially, the leaders of each faction can credibly promise things to each other: “I can give X if you give Y.” “Will your people be OK with that?” “Yeah, I’ll explain it was necessary and they’ll fall in line.”
1 reply 0 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
But C is at a sharp disadvantage, because C has little influence over her constituents. Whatever she tries to “promise,” all the independent thinkers back home will be just as likely to grumble and undermine the effort as go along with it.
1 reply 0 retweets 31 likesShow this thread -
“Hey C, can you give us Z as part of the bargain?” [C, imagining her den of cats] “Uhhhh...” This is how C is constrained at the bargaining table: by her inability to make credible commitments.
3 replies 0 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @KevinSimler
Wait but it also seems that if they're superrational (in the Hofstadterian sense) they'll realise *exactly the argument you're making here*. And also, having a random effect constraining in you negotiation is usually great. Forces the others to tip their hands
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
this would work but nobody trusts anyone enough to be superrational
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.