Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Sarah Constantin 21. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @RokoMijicUK
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Sarah Constantin 21. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @RokoMijicUK
Not sufficient of course.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Roko Mijic 21. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @s_r_constantin
& 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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Jennifer RM 21. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @RokoMijicUK @s_r_constantin
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...
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Sarah Constantin 21. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @almostlikethat @RokoMijicUK
"evolutionary sensitivity" means what here?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Jennifer RM 21. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @s_r_constantin @RokoMijicUK
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).
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Roko Mijic 21. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @almostlikethat @s_r_constantin
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Roko Mijic 21. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @almostlikethat @s_r_constantin
IMO this mismatch between our game-theory instincts and the actual world we live in is the cause of many of our problems.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Jennifer RM 21. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @RokoMijicUK @s_r_constantin
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 :-)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Roko Mijic 21. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @almostlikethat @s_r_constantin
"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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Jennifer RM
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 ;-)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Roko Mijic 21. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @almostlikethat @s_r_constantin
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Jennifer RM 22. ruj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @RokoMijicUK @s_r_constantin
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...
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"