Sometimes I have a crazy intuition like “if people just categorically refused to work with anybody who seemed untrustworthy or “fake” or trying to take advantage, the world would be better.”
-
-
There’s a weirdly compelling intuition to me that the only real problem with the world is people second-guessing their own best judgments. Disagreement isn’t a problem, conflicting interests aren’t a problem, ignorance isn’t a problem; those are all necessary conditions of life.
Prikaži ovu nit -
But when a person thinks “that guy seems like an asshole to me, but I’m not hearing anyone else say it, maybe I was dreaming”, that’s a real problem. That’s the world’s store of collective intelligence erasing information.
Prikaži ovu nit -
This idea rhymes with Paul Graham's "Be Good" http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html . "Companies often claim to be benevolent, but it was surprising to realize there were purely benevolent projects that had to be embodied as companies to work." Google started out as almost a nonprofit.
Prikaži ovu nit -
"Most of us have some amount of natural benevolence...the very best hackers tend to be idealistic. They're not desperate for a job. They can work wherever they want. So most want to work on things that will make the world better."
Prikaži ovu nit -
"You grow big by being nice, but you can stay big by being mean. You get away with it till the underlying conditions change, and then all your victims escape."
Prikaži ovu nit -
This also rhymes with Justin Murphy's idea that "communism" (which he thinks of in an unorthodox way" requires "accurate social valuation of individual characters".https://theotherlifenow.com/aristocracy-and-communism/ …
Prikaži ovu nit -
Murphy notes that "intentional communities" fail because people don't reward helpfulness and competence, or punish freeloading and sociopathy. The kinds of people who join those communities aren't even *trying* to do that, because they don't believe character matters.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Murphy's proposal is strangely simple: "Each person in a community agrees to assign status (i.e. distribute their respect) to all the others according to the others' contributions to the community, however each person honestly evaluates the others' contributions."
Prikaži ovu nit -
You can start doing this *now*, immediately, wherever you are. Is someone doing something you think is a public service? Praise them or donate to them! Is someone doing something you think is harmful to your community or to humanity? Say so, and withdraw your help!
Prikaži ovu nit -
Unilaterally choose to, as best you can, make the incentives you send match the things you value. No human incentive system, including the market, can function if people don't *mostly* succeed in doing this.
Prikaži ovu nit -
The basic idea of communism is "the workers do all the actual work, and they are being exploited by a tiny number of people who contribute nothing and just leech off them. But if the workers do all the work, they *have all the power.* Why do they tolerate exploitation?"
Prikaži ovu nit -
"The workers are *strong*, not weak; if they are systematically exploited it must be because they are confused, lack confidence in their strength, or lack coordination mechanisms. Therefore, raising their awareness and confidence and helping coordinate will solve their problem."
Prikaži ovu nit -
I'm not a communist. But my only real disagreement with *this* argument, thus far, is that I think people who do genuine professional, managerial, mercantile, or intellectual work are not parasites but contributors. The "workers" are literally everybody whose work is useful.
Prikaži ovu nit -
It's easier to *disguise* zero-sum exploitation as positive-sum contribution if you're professional-class -- there's not much doubt that most janitors are really cleaning, while it's more ambiguous whether most bankers are really trading.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Nobody can know infallibly whether somebody is doing positive-sum contribution or zero-sum exploitation. People will have different opinions. This is fine.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Or, at any rate, we have to accept it because it's inevitable. People aren't clones or oracles. Everybody acting on their best judgment (informed by communication with others) is the best humans can possibly do.
Prikaži ovu nit -
I don't necessarily believe that there is a well-defined group called "exploiters", responsible for most social ills, that the majority of people can recognize and can coordinate to keep out.
Prikaži ovu nit -
What I believe is that if a significant fraction of people -- including many of the most productive and morally idealistic -- are deluded into thinking that they shouldn't or can't judge people's character & incentivize them accordingly, we're underperforming.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Paul Graham's idea of a "good person" may be quite different from Justin Murphy's. But both of them would be wrong to suppress their impulses to associate with good people and disassociate with bad people.
Prikaži ovu nit -
To be clear, I don’t mean “cancel everyone who has flaws and give no second chances.” Not at all. I mean *proportional* incentives; be more willing to help people the more helpful/constructive you think they are on net.
Prikaži ovu nit -
And “just say no” to extortion. Don’t help people because they threaten to harm you otherwise.
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.