Conversation

Replying to
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
I’d actually transpose Sarah’s whole argument to stupid people in a specific sense: not necessarily dumb, but under the robotic control of a Thinking System. Formulaic pseudothinkers who crank through algorithmic cognition with no attention to contents, context, or consequences.
1
1
Replying to and
That's a culture thinking, via its memes. It's hideously slow and stupid, but also scales to the limit of its communication capabilities. (Chthonic consequences of the Internet, given this, are left as an exercise for the reader.)
1
1