Do you think it’s wise to entrust the collective with judging the worth of intellectuals?
The idea as described doesn’t necessitate that.
Everyone rates everyose else. This creates a web of trust.
An individual user then designates a few sources they trust. The system uses those seeds to propagate trust through the network, by a transitivity assumption.
So every individual gets custom trust ratings of everyone else, based on who they personally trust to evaluate trustworthiness.
This doesn’t directly solve the base-level problem of evaluating intellectuals, but it solves the problem of aggregating everyone’s opinions about intellectual trustworthiness, while taking into account their trustworthiness in said aggregation.
Because the aggregation doesn’t automatically include everyone’s opinion, we are not “entrusting the collective” with anything. You start the trust aggregation from trusted sources.
Unfortunately, the trust evaluations do remain entirely subjective (IE unlike probabilities in a prediction market, there is no objective truth which eventually comes in to decide who was right.)
The idea as described doesn’t necessitate that.
Everyone rates everyose else. This creates a web of trust.
An individual user then designates a few sources they trust. The system uses those seeds to propagate trust through the network, by a transitivity assumption.
So every individual gets custom trust ratings of everyone else, based on who they personally trust to evaluate trustworthiness.
This doesn’t directly solve the base-level problem of evaluating intellectuals, but it solves the problem of aggregating everyone’s opinions about intellectual trustworthiness, while taking into account their trustworthiness in said aggregation.
Because the aggregation doesn’t automatically include everyone’s opinion, we are not “entrusting the collective” with anything. You start the trust aggregation from trusted sources.
Unfortunately, the trust evaluations do remain entirely subjective (IE unlike probabilities in a prediction market, there is no objective truth which eventually comes in to decide who was right.)