|
|
@almostlikethat | |||||
|
In subdunbar groups, doing normal human stuff, science says: "Trust your gut, human people!!"
For everything else, there is mastercard... and an empirically grounded theoretical literature with some counter-intuitive results ;-) pic.twitter.com/FEoRZTtP6m
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Sarah Constantin
@s_r_constantin
|
21. ruj |
|
No, I'm not saying that exactly. Moral exhortation *is* a kind of coordination mechanism. (i.e. having the concept of "courage" is a pretty key element in getting soldiers not to flee!) I think things are bad enough that exhortation to trust your own judgment is necessary.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Sarah Constantin
@s_r_constantin
|
21. ruj |
|
Not sufficient of course.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roko Mijic
@RokoMijicUK
|
21. ruj |
|
& you can test this with game theory experiments: get 100 anonymous strangers and make them play a many-person prisoner's dilemma. They will get the Nash equilibrium.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jennifer RM
@almostlikethat
|
21. ruj |
|
Most empirical work shows evolutionary sensitivity to: the value of cooperation, signal/noise ratios, the cost & griefing ratio of punishment, retaliatory abilities, the ability to watch others, metanorms (related to punishing non-punishers and rewarding cops), etc, etc...
|
||
|
|
||
|
Sarah Constantin
@s_r_constantin
|
21. ruj |
|
"evolutionary sensitivity" means what here?
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jennifer RM
@almostlikethat
|
21. ruj |
|
You can simulate it and "(simulated) nature finds a way".
I think that normal humans are pretty good at intuitively navigating a lot of these issues (because "social mammal") but bad at articulating descriptively and strategically correct theories (because science is hard).
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roko Mijic
@RokoMijicUK
|
21. ruj |
|
we're good at navigating them at scale ~= Dunbar number and under a "fixed pie" assumption where there's no economic growth, because that's a good approximation of most of our evolutionary history.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roko Mijic
@RokoMijicUK
|
21. ruj |
|
IMO this mismatch between our game-theory instincts and the actual world we live in is the cause of many of our problems.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jennifer RM
@almostlikethat
|
21. ruj |
|
Yeah. If human groups stay F2F, family-sized, or village-sized (or similar to any of these) you generally get SOME kind of decent outcome with basically ZERO real theory.
Also, scienticians are hard at work refining theories about what scales and why :-)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roko Mijic
@RokoMijicUK
|
21. ruj |
|
"human groups stay F2F, family-sized, or village-sized ... get SOME kind of decent outcome with basically ZERO real theory."
yes because that is our natural habitat and we have instinctive ways of making it work, like a fish in the water or a mountain goat on a steep slope.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roko Mijic
@RokoMijicUK
|
21. ruj |
|
The upgrades needed to make humans work in large groups are more about ideas, cultures, traditions.
Coming back to the original question, nobody has worked out how to make an institution or tradition that would allow just the "non-asshole" people to work together.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jennifer RM
@almostlikethat
|
22. ruj |
|
I think executive cadres have done this over and over for millennia, but the theories were partial, practical, and hard to reliably teach.
With tech, "full" solutions might be possible, but many *technically* possible novel solutions seem likely to me to result in dystopias...
|
||
|
|
||