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.
Conversation
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.
1
2
21
This idea rhymes with Paul Graham's "Be Good" 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.
1
8
"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."
1
8
"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."
1
6
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". theotherlifenow.com/aristocracy-an
1
2
6
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.
1
1
10
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."
2
7
Replying to
This is impractical for a reason I think you’re missing. Most transactions that go bad are not 2-way but 3-way or 4-way. There are intermediaries. Or the people paying are not the people supervising. Or the people working are not the owners of the capital good being used.
2
2
Replying to
Sorry, I'm not following -- how does that change things?
1
1
Replying to
It changes things because people who can spot bad faith behaviors are often not the ones able to punish it, and are under incentives to not complain. And the ones able to punish often have incentives to not know. The less power someone has, the more they get caught in such traps.
A generally robust pattern here is the double Morton effect, aka survival of the stupidest. In n>2 games, stupidity can be adaptive, and thus can create room for malice to be adaptive as well. I haven’t worked out the full argument.
3
4
Show replies
A general weakness of what I consider a libertarian predisposition to analyzing social problems and proposing solutions in terms of 1:1 behaviors OR 1:hivemind behaviors, is not recognizing ubiquity of 2 < n < hivemind dynamics in nearly all social vulnerabilities.
1

