Conversation

Replying to
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
21
"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
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
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
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.
2
5
Replying to and
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.