Unvarnished Truth #3: Filters and preconceptions

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I would say that is also down to filters and perception.  Because for them, leaders are charismatic Heroic wish-fulfillment props for their shitty lives, they want someone who they can live through vicariously and who can engage in violent and idealist actions so that they stop being Office Slave #32 but instead part of the War on [Something], fighting bravely (on the home front, of course).

You can't do that with someone who engages in diplomacy and keeps their nastier covert actions silent, so those feelings of resentment and anger are transferred onto them as a proximate cause.

Excellent point, Cain.

[Doktor Howl]

Going to be a delay on the next installment.  Fucking steam line just blew out, and I have to go fuck with things.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Fucking steam line just blew out,

[Cainad (dec.)]

The end result, or at least, what I took home from it (apart from becoming more knowledgeable about the general field, of course), is that there apparently is no perfect solution that works in all cases. And that, IMVPO, utilitarianism seems fairest, on the whole.

What works for one situation may not work for another.  There is no cookie cutter solution for everything, and to insist that all systems - or any system - would be completely scaleable (as one person has apparently asserted) if only humans were perfectly educated kind of reinforces my point.

IF A SYSTEM REQUIRES PERFECTION OR EVEN GENERAL COMPETENCE ON A LARGE SCALE, IT WILL FAIL.

Skipping three pages of discussion to say: this perfectly crystallizes my thoughts on the matter.

[BabylonHoruv]

The effective solution is that the three of them trade between each other for the things the need. On a large scale, however, people are clawing and scratching to be the guy that everyone goes to for their carrots, or whatever, and everyone wants more than what they really ought to have.

Am I right?

Incorrect.  Now you have to build 3 fires to cook with.  The effective solution is that you pour what everyone has into a pot, stew it, and everybody eats.

It doesn't work on a large scale, because there's a limit to the size of the fire and the pot.  Also, if you continue to centralize beyond a certain point, you have a planned economy (See former Soviet Union for details on how this works out.).  

The point here is that good ideas aren't always scalable.

Now, after a certain point, it does make sense to barter (or buy and sell once you curse yourself with currency), due to the above limitations.  This will work for a while, but then the inevitable happens.  2 internets to whomever can spot the flaw.

The other problem with the big pot is people who don't grow anything who want some of the soup.  Works ok on a small scale, especcially if they do something else that is helpful, but t becomes hard to quantize that when things start to scale up.

[Doktor Howl]

The effective solution is that the three of them trade between each other for the things the need. On a large scale, however, people are clawing and scratching to be the guy that everyone goes to for their carrots, or whatever, and everyone wants more than what they really ought to have.

Am I right?

Incorrect.  Now you have to build 3 fires to cook with.  The effective solution is that you pour what everyone has into a pot, stew it, and everybody eats.

It doesn't work on a large scale, because there's a limit to the size of the fire and the pot.  Also, if you continue to centralize beyond a certain point, you have a planned economy (See former Soviet Union for details on how this works out.).  

The point here is that good ideas aren't always scalable.

Now, after a certain point, it does make sense to barter (or buy and sell once you curse yourself with currency), due to the above limitations.  This will work for a while, but then the inevitable happens.  2 internets to whomever can spot the flaw.

The other problem with the big pot is people who don't grow anything who want some of the soup.  Works ok on a small scale, especcially if they do something else that is helpful, but t becomes hard to quantize that when things start to scale up.

AGAIN, NOT THE FUCKING POINT OF THE ANALOGY.  GODDAMMIT.

HOW ARE THOSE FILTERS FITTING, BABYLON HORUV?  ARE THEY FUCKING COMFORTABLE?  DO THEY LET YOU FUCKING SLEEP AT NIGHT?

OOK OOK, YOU GODDAMN PRIMATE.

I FUCKING HATE YOU ALL.  DIE.

[Requia ☣]

You know, the complete inability for some people to focus on the topic and not the goddamned sidetrack analogy does a better job of proving Roger's point about filters than anything I could possibly dig up.

[Doktor Howl]

You know, the complete inability for some people to focus on the topic and not the goddamned sidetrack analogy does a better job of proving Roger's point about filters than anything I could possibly dig up.

Yes.  This.

If any of you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves.

[BabylonHoruv]

This is reminding me of Heuristics...

A Heuristic is a tool you use for solving problems. Trial and Error is a heuristic. Compromise is a social heuristic. Voting is a heuristic typically employed in democracies. The logic is that if you're encountering similar types of problems, you employ similar types of solutions.

The danger of relying on heuristics is that humans are bad at figuring out when to apply them. As it's said, "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." We live in a world where there are certain rules, and when things change, we are bad at evaluating whether we should keep using those rules. I think this stems, in part, from the black swan effect - nobody can accurately predict the future. The current data set might not represent future data sets. A government based on the consent of 50%+1 seemed to work at a smaller scale, now we're seeing that a system in which 49% of the population is constantly pissed off is not a great engine for life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.

The misapplication of heuristics is what leads to cognitive biases.  People are failing to legislate away internet piracy because they're still stuck of thinking of data in the same terms as material property. The trick in getting people to not apply the wrong heuristics is to get them to think about the problem in new ways.  When you're stuck on a math problem, try drawing a picture of it. Maybe what we need is some new models or rules that will help us understand the bizarre era we're living in.


also relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

majority rule can be a bitch on a small scale too.  If you have 3 people, and one of them is always getting the shaft, that is not going to work in any sort of long term.  I'd say democracy works best in small but not tiny groups, upwards of twenty but no more than a few hundred.

[BabylonHoruv]

The effective solution is that the three of them trade between each other for the things the need. On a large scale, however, people are clawing and scratching to be the guy that everyone goes to for their carrots, or whatever, and everyone wants more than what they really ought to have.

Am I right?

Incorrect.  Now you have to build 3 fires to cook with.  The effective solution is that you pour what everyone has into a pot, stew it, and everybody eats.

It doesn't work on a large scale, because there's a limit to the size of the fire and the pot.  Also, if you continue to centralize beyond a certain point, you have a planned economy (See former Soviet Union for details on how this works out.).  

The point here is that good ideas aren't always scalable.

Now, after a certain point, it does make sense to barter (or buy and sell once you curse yourself with currency), due to the above limitations.  This will work for a while, but then the inevitable happens.  2 internets to whomever can spot the flaw.

The other problem with the big pot is people who don't grow anything who want some of the soup.  Works ok on a small scale, especcially if they do something else that is helpful, but t becomes hard to quantize that when things start to scale up.

AGAIN, NOT THE FUCKING POINT OF THE ANALOGY.  GODDAMMIT.

HOW ARE THOSE FILTERS FITTING, BABYLON HORUV?  ARE THEY FUCKING COMFORTABLE?  DO THEY LET YOU FUCKING SLEEP AT NIGHT?

OOK OOK, YOU GODDAMN PRIMATE.

I FUCKING HATE YOU ALL.  DIE.

I think I missed the point then.  Unless it was no system is one size fits all, they are all going to be appropriate in some situations and not in others.  Which I agree with.

And no trouble sleeping, but I think my filters must be loose because I've been having some weird dreams lately.

[Doktor Howl]

I think I missed the point then. 

You illustrated the point.

[BabylonHoruv]

I think I missed the point then. 

You illustrated the point.

Good, glad to be helpful, even if by being clueless.

[Doktor Howl]

I think I missed the point then.

You illustrated the point.

Good, glad to be helpful, even if by being clueless.

Can't do nothing for ya, man.  Re-read the OP, and try again on the farmer analogy.

[Requia ☣]

You know, the complete inability for some people to focus on the topic and not the goddamned sidetrack analogy does a better job of proving Roger's point about filters than anything I could possibly dig up.

Yes.  This.

If any of you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves.

Sorry, no love from me, the most you get is begrudging respect.

[Reginald Ret]

Perhaps there is only one stage of building complexity, which is the amount of people involved.  Increases in technology and communication speeds make it possible for more people to become involved.  If it takes 3 months to send a message, then only a few people can make decisions or affect the process.  If it takes 3 seconds, then far more people can be involved.

So, a population of 300,000 with slow communication may have the same level of complexity as a population of 300, but as soon as you add fast communication, the complexity skyrockets.


Am I babbling, or does this fit?

How about: It's not the people, but the interactions that determine complexity.
2 humans = 2 interaction (both ways)
3 humans = 6
4humans = 12
10 humans = 90
etc




I'm going to start a list of 'good ideas' with an estimate of their effective range.
1            Anarchism( self-mockery ITT); Abstinence
1-8         True equality
2-15       Communism
2-1000    Alpha leader types
2-150      Altruism
2-500      Pure Democracy (voting on issues, not representatives)
6-100k    Capitalism
1k-2m     Representation


Anybody want to add?