Ignore all non-gears level feedback: Getting feedback is important for epistemolgical correctness. But if it is in an adversarial setting feedback may be trying to make you believe something to their benefit. Ignore all karma scores, for example. If however someone can tell you how and why you are going wrong (or right) that can be useful, if you agree with their reasoning.
Only update on facts that logically follow from things you already believe. If someone has followed an inference chain further than you, you can use their work safely.
If arguments rely on facts new to you, look at the world and see if those facts are consistent with what is around you.
That said, as I don’t believe in a sudden switch to utopia, I think it important to strengthen the less-adversarial parts of society, so I will be seeking those out. “Start as you mean to go on,” seems like decent wisdom, in this day and age.
If you can identify people in H reliably then you would ignore everyone outside of H. The whole point of the game is that you can’t tell who is who.
So what you can do is.
Ignore all non-gears level feedback: Getting feedback is important for epistemolgical correctness. But if it is in an adversarial setting feedback may be trying to make you believe something to their benefit. Ignore all karma scores, for example. If however someone can tell you how and why you are going wrong (or right) that can be useful, if you agree with their reasoning.
Only update on facts that logically follow from things you already believe. If someone has followed an inference chain further than you, you can use their work safely.
If arguments rely on facts new to you, look at the world and see if those facts are consistent with what is around you.
That said, as I don’t believe in a sudden switch to utopia, I think it important to strengthen the less-adversarial parts of society, so I will be seeking those out. “Start as you mean to go on,” seems like decent wisdom, in this day and age.