There is a self coordination strategy that looks something like one part of yourself taking over. At least that gets shit done. There is another coordination strategy that looks like a consensus among parts of a congruent self. They both work but probably work for different people.
Pick your method. I pick congruent self.
Also something about unpreferential game theory equilibrium states.
I agree with pushing for short posts, but I really want some gears to the theory as well. I did include an abstract which was basically the same as your summary. What I wanted to do was point at how it is fairly confusing that the fusion paradigm exists, given the breadth of thinking that points in the direction of treaty-style coordination. For my purposes, the post you describe is something I’ve heard articulated before (by Ziz and others) and not really what I’m getting at. I guess I didn’t make that clear in the title/abstract—I’ll think about editing a bit.
Did I need to go into all three domain-specific cases (property rights, side-taking hypothesis, Ainslee’s willpower model) after briefly reviewing Schelling? Probably not. I do think each one adds something.
Putting it that way, the short post for my purposes would have been an open-ended question:
“You know Ainslee’s willpower model, and how it’s like tit-for-tat? You know the stuff Ziz and Nate talk about, which doesn’t seem like tit-for-tat? How could that possibly work??”
But it seems like a lot more needs to be said to explain in what way the Ziz+Nate model is not like tit-for-tat.
Yeah. My own immediate impression was that a) the post was a bit rambly (even given it’s goals), but b) I was very grateful for someone finally doing a fairly in depth dig into how these paradigms contrast, what the gears are, explaining them in enough detail so that someone who naturally gravitates towards treaties can understand fusion (or vice versa, although I think it’s less common for fusion people to be confused about treaties)
Doing a bunch of line editing on the post is very nice of you, but also comes off as possibly passive-agressive in the context of you not having said anything nice about the post… most of the edit suggestions just seem helpful, but I’m left feeling like your goal is to prove that the post is bad rather than improve it (especially since you say “If those were all solved, more might be visible” rather than something encouraging).
All I’m saying is I’m a bit weirded out. Maybe I’m mis-reading bluntness as hostility.
Anyway, I’ll probably try and incorporate some of the suggested edits soon.
This whole post could have been shorter.
There is a self coordination strategy that looks something like one part of yourself taking over. At least that gets shit done. There is another coordination strategy that looks like a consensus among parts of a congruent self. They both work but probably work for different people.
Pick your method. I pick congruent self.
Also something about unpreferential game theory equilibrium states.
I agree with pushing for short posts, but I really want some gears to the theory as well. I did include an abstract which was basically the same as your summary. What I wanted to do was point at how it is fairly confusing that the fusion paradigm exists, given the breadth of thinking that points in the direction of treaty-style coordination. For my purposes, the post you describe is something I’ve heard articulated before (by Ziz and others) and not really what I’m getting at. I guess I didn’t make that clear in the title/abstract—I’ll think about editing a bit.
Did I need to go into all three domain-specific cases (property rights, side-taking hypothesis, Ainslee’s willpower model) after briefly reviewing Schelling? Probably not. I do think each one adds something.
Putting it that way, the short post for my purposes would have been an open-ended question:
“You know Ainslee’s willpower model, and how it’s like tit-for-tat? You know the stuff Ziz and Nate talk about, which doesn’t seem like tit-for-tat? How could that possibly work??”
But it seems like a lot more needs to be said to explain in what way the Ziz+Nate model is not like tit-for-tat.
Yeah. My own immediate impression was that a) the post was a bit rambly (even given it’s goals), but b) I was very grateful for someone finally doing a fairly in depth dig into how these paradigms contrast, what the gears are, explaining them in enough detail so that someone who naturally gravitates towards treaties can understand fusion (or vice versa, although I think it’s less common for fusion people to be confused about treaties)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/165gF52jGhNn82F2uLsng7tiH3uRGRD_anx8Gh1HQMhY/edit?usp=sharing
lots of things wrong with the post. If those were all solved, more might be visible.
Doing a bunch of line editing on the post is very nice of you, but also comes off as possibly passive-agressive in the context of you not having said anything nice about the post… most of the edit suggestions just seem helpful, but I’m left feeling like your goal is to prove that the post is bad rather than improve it (especially since you say “If those were all solved, more might be visible” rather than something encouraging).
All I’m saying is I’m a bit weirded out. Maybe I’m mis-reading bluntness as hostility.
Anyway, I’ll probably try and incorporate some of the suggested edits soon.