Deferring is straightforwardly a thing you can do with your “vote” in eigen-evaluation. As I wrote:
While in the absence of direct feedback this system makes sense, I think it works better when everyone’s contributing their own judgments and starts to degrade when it becomes overwhelmingly about popularity and who defers to who.
Perhaps the word “evaluation” in there is what’s misleading.
Being paid or threatened feel so degenerate (and to result in professions of belief) that I hadn’t really considered them. Still, suppose there are different people paying or voting in different directions, I think how those net out in what’s regarded as “good” will be via an eigen-evaluation process.
On second thought, I do think payment/coercion might be what “people believe X because it’s advantageous” is equivalent to. For example, they end up favoring views/research X because that gets you more access to resources (researchers in X are better funded, etc).
Deferring is straightforwardly a thing you can do with your “vote” in eigen-evaluation. As I wrote:
Perhaps the word “evaluation” in there is what’s misleading.
Being paid or threatened feel so degenerate (and to result in professions of belief) that I hadn’t really considered them. Still, suppose there are different people paying or voting in different directions, I think how those net out in what’s regarded as “good” will be via an eigen-evaluation process.
On second thought, I do think payment/coercion might be what “people believe X because it’s advantageous” is equivalent to. For example, they end up favoring views/research X because that gets you more access to resources (researchers in X are better funded, etc).