The societies I have been told about are limited in scope. Only a rationalistic conspiracy would be in direct competition with the Bayesians. The Cooperative Conspiracy and Bayesian Conspiracy apparently allow open membership in both, while the Cooperative Conspiracy would probably be in competition with an Individualist Conspiracy or Competitive Conspiracy.
Of course, even the Model Airplane Conspiracy could restrict members to only their conspiracy, preventing them from being Bayesian Conspirators despite the conspiracies’ dissimilar subjects, particularly if the Bayesians forbade hiding one’s identity.
Insofar as one ought to speak and think cleanly, secret societies would not be challenged to show results—this is to talk as if under the sway of their mystery. They would be assumed to be worse than useless until they demonstrated results—useless at first thought because mystery has no value, less than that at second thought because not showing value is evidence of not being able to show it, which is evidence of not having it.
The societies I have been told about are limited in scope. Only a rationalistic conspiracy would be in direct competition with the Bayesians. The Cooperative Conspiracy and Bayesian Conspiracy apparently allow open membership in both, while the Cooperative Conspiracy would probably be in competition with an Individualist Conspiracy or Competitive Conspiracy.
Of course, even the Model Airplane Conspiracy could restrict members to only their conspiracy, preventing them from being Bayesian Conspirators despite the conspiracies’ dissimilar subjects, particularly if the Bayesians forbade hiding one’s identity.
Insofar as one ought to speak and think cleanly, secret societies would not be challenged to show results—this is to talk as if under the sway of their mystery. They would be assumed to be worse than useless until they demonstrated results—useless at first thought because mystery has no value, less than that at second thought because not showing value is evidence of not being able to show it, which is evidence of not having it.