most people are kinda nice, but the bad actors are somehow over-represented
I think that people who want power tend to get it. Power isn’t a nice thing to want, and it’s kind of not even a sane thing to want. The same sort of applies to a platform or a loud voice, another form of overrepresentation.
I agree that one way to better cooperation is a better asshole filter and better way to share information about people. Reputation systems to date have suffered the shortcomings you mention, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t solutions.
If these people frequently reciprocate bad reviews, corroborated by the same people, their votes can be deprecated to the point of being worthless. Any algorithm can be gamed, but if it’s kept private, it might be made very hard to game. And shifting the algorithm retrospectively discourages gaming, by risking your future vote by any gaming attempts.
The stakes are quite high here, but I don’t know of any work suggesting that the problem is unsolvable.
It’s bad that getting power is positively correlated with wanting power, rather than with being competent, nice, and sane. But that’s the natural outcome; there would have to be some force acting in the opposite direction to get a different outcome.
People instinctively hate those who have power, but there are a few problems with the instinct. First, the world is complicated—if someone magically offered me a position to rule something, I would be quite aware that I am not competent enough to take it. (If the options were either me, or a person who I believe is clearly a bad choice, I would probably accept the deal, but the next step would be desperately trying to find smart and trustworthy advisors; ideally hoping that I would also get a budget to pay them.) Second, the well-known trick for people who want power is to make you believe that they will fight for you, against some dangerous outgroup.
it’s kind of not even a sane thing to want.
If the stakes are small, and I am obviously the most competent person in the room, it makes sense to attempt to take the power to make the decisions. But with big things, such as national politics, there are too many people competing, too big cost to pay, too many unpredictable influences… you either dedicate your entire life to it, or you don’t have much of a chance.
I think the reasonable way to get power is to start with smaller stakes and move up gradually. That way, however far you get, you did what you were able to do. Many people ignore it; they focus on the big things they see in TV, where they have approximately zero chance to influence something, while ignoring less shiny options, such as municipal politics, where there is a greater chance to succeed. But this is a problem for rationalists outside of Bay Area, if each of us lives in a different city, we do not have much of an opportunity to cooperate on the municipal level.
I very much agree that
I think that people who want power tend to get it. Power isn’t a nice thing to want, and it’s kind of not even a sane thing to want. The same sort of applies to a platform or a loud voice, another form of overrepresentation.
I agree that one way to better cooperation is a better asshole filter and better way to share information about people. Reputation systems to date have suffered the shortcomings you mention, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t solutions.
If these people frequently reciprocate bad reviews, corroborated by the same people, their votes can be deprecated to the point of being worthless. Any algorithm can be gamed, but if it’s kept private, it might be made very hard to game. And shifting the algorithm retrospectively discourages gaming, by risking your future vote by any gaming attempts.
The stakes are quite high here, but I don’t know of any work suggesting that the problem is unsolvable.
It’s bad that getting power is positively correlated with wanting power, rather than with being competent, nice, and sane. But that’s the natural outcome; there would have to be some force acting in the opposite direction to get a different outcome.
People instinctively hate those who have power, but there are a few problems with the instinct. First, the world is complicated—if someone magically offered me a position to rule something, I would be quite aware that I am not competent enough to take it. (If the options were either me, or a person who I believe is clearly a bad choice, I would probably accept the deal, but the next step would be desperately trying to find smart and trustworthy advisors; ideally hoping that I would also get a budget to pay them.) Second, the well-known trick for people who want power is to make you believe that they will fight for you, against some dangerous outgroup.
If the stakes are small, and I am obviously the most competent person in the room, it makes sense to attempt to take the power to make the decisions. But with big things, such as national politics, there are too many people competing, too big cost to pay, too many unpredictable influences… you either dedicate your entire life to it, or you don’t have much of a chance.
I think the reasonable way to get power is to start with smaller stakes and move up gradually. That way, however far you get, you did what you were able to do. Many people ignore it; they focus on the big things they see in TV, where they have approximately zero chance to influence something, while ignoring less shiny options, such as municipal politics, where there is a greater chance to succeed. But this is a problem for rationalists outside of Bay Area, if each of us lives in a different city, we do not have much of an opportunity to cooperate on the municipal level.