Recently I finished both Sam Harris's End of Faith and How We Believe by Michael Shermer. Harris left me unconvinced that it will be possible to end faith. He makes a good argument for its dangers but Shermer's left me wondering if the only solution terror issue is introducing a new meme. These meme would have to both 1) neutralize the results of beliefs that are detrimental to our civilization and 2) have greater fitness than current memes. Yes, this sounds very similar to the anti-malaria mosquito.
The only way I could think of to neutralize civilization-destructive beliefs is rather grizzly: some type of suicide mechanism that forbids harming others in the process. For the fitness property, there are already memes that provide paradise after death and riches for the family left behind. Perhaps the fitness problem could be outsourced; what if all the believers wealth transferred to their religious institution? Then it would be in the entrepreneurial clergy's best interest to devise ways to make this meme win over other memes. Would that produce a high enough fitness?
But this must be a topic others have worked on in the past. I probably just need to do some more reading to find out what are the best contenders for this procelator meme.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Reason in Politics
I ran into Bruce Guthrie the other day and had a short but insightful chat with him about the Libertarian Party’s struggles to break out of the low single digits in elections. One issue is around creating a ‘big tent’ for the party.
Libertarians divide themselves into two camps: ‘Anarchists’ and ‘Incrementalists’. Anarchists strive to bring about the wholesale destruction of the government. When Ron Paul talks about eliminating the IRS, he is speaking to the Anarchist wing of the party. Inside the Libertarian Party itself, Incrementalists view themselves as realists that will propose arguments such as ‘Although we all want to get rid of public schools, its part of the state constitution, so we should just aim for allowing school choice.’ The Anarchists form the core of the traditional party and the Incrementalists are what the party hopes to use to create big tent inclusion.
Unfortunately, these two groups are diametrically opposed. Incrementalists are simply Conservatives with a different name. They admit the world is the way it is and try to modify the state of affairs rather than destroy and rebuild. How can you ever expect Anarchists and Conservatives to agree on policy issues? How can a Libertarian Party found by Anarchists ever grow to include Conservatives?
I had a conversation with a Goldwater Republican that turned Libertarian after being disillusioned with Nixon’s protectionism. The individual surprised me with his description of the strong economic bent in the drive for his group of Anarchist members to join the Libertarian Party. The economic studies of the 70’s caused many people to believe ‘liberty’ was a better model for economic growth in the US than the state driven, protectionist approach advocated by both the left and parts of right. Reason drove them to become Libertarians, not belief.
This fascinated me because it provided a link between the Anarchist and Incrementalists. What if, rather than saying: ‘Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make’, the party platform said something more like ‘Our understanding of economic systems implies the country would be better off if individuals were free to make choices for themselves and to accept the consequences’. Even though the statement leads to the same policy result, the discussion has now shifted from a shouting match about beliefs to reasoning about what is better for the country. Anarchists might think this approach makes sense because it harkens back to the reasons they joined the party, while the focus on logic would appeal to the Incrementalists.
This rational approach could also help the party succeed against competitors. The Democrats and Republicans are both belief-based institutions. The beliefs may have changed over time as the country has changed, but both parties try to position themselves to voters as representing their ‘values’. It is in their DNA to appeal to the emotions of citizens to get votes. Using beliefs to tug at the right emotions is a great tool for motivating voters, but the Libertarian Party is unlikely to win this game. The major parties have already perfected the art; why would the Libertarian Party be any better at it? If the Libertarian Party came across a belief system that was more successful at motivating voters, what would prevent the Democrats or Republicans from co-opting that belief system and using their size advantages to beat the Libertarians?
The trick would be to change the way politics operate in this country. Building a party based on reason might be the method to do this. Reason has already been successful in making gains in Washington State for the Libertarians; instant runoff voting did not flow from the traditional Libertarian principles but was a rational choice to improve the country’s democracy. Questions remain on when and how voters choose to vote with their minds rather than their emotions, but if executed properly, a rational campaign could beat the major parties by having voters dissect and discount belief based arguments.
Libertarians divide themselves into two camps: ‘Anarchists’ and ‘Incrementalists’. Anarchists strive to bring about the wholesale destruction of the government. When Ron Paul talks about eliminating the IRS, he is speaking to the Anarchist wing of the party. Inside the Libertarian Party itself, Incrementalists view themselves as realists that will propose arguments such as ‘Although we all want to get rid of public schools, its part of the state constitution, so we should just aim for allowing school choice.’ The Anarchists form the core of the traditional party and the Incrementalists are what the party hopes to use to create big tent inclusion.
Unfortunately, these two groups are diametrically opposed. Incrementalists are simply Conservatives with a different name. They admit the world is the way it is and try to modify the state of affairs rather than destroy and rebuild. How can you ever expect Anarchists and Conservatives to agree on policy issues? How can a Libertarian Party found by Anarchists ever grow to include Conservatives?
I had a conversation with a Goldwater Republican that turned Libertarian after being disillusioned with Nixon’s protectionism. The individual surprised me with his description of the strong economic bent in the drive for his group of Anarchist members to join the Libertarian Party. The economic studies of the 70’s caused many people to believe ‘liberty’ was a better model for economic growth in the US than the state driven, protectionist approach advocated by both the left and parts of right. Reason drove them to become Libertarians, not belief.
This fascinated me because it provided a link between the Anarchist and Incrementalists. What if, rather than saying: ‘Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make’, the party platform said something more like ‘Our understanding of economic systems implies the country would be better off if individuals were free to make choices for themselves and to accept the consequences’. Even though the statement leads to the same policy result, the discussion has now shifted from a shouting match about beliefs to reasoning about what is better for the country. Anarchists might think this approach makes sense because it harkens back to the reasons they joined the party, while the focus on logic would appeal to the Incrementalists.
This rational approach could also help the party succeed against competitors. The Democrats and Republicans are both belief-based institutions. The beliefs may have changed over time as the country has changed, but both parties try to position themselves to voters as representing their ‘values’. It is in their DNA to appeal to the emotions of citizens to get votes. Using beliefs to tug at the right emotions is a great tool for motivating voters, but the Libertarian Party is unlikely to win this game. The major parties have already perfected the art; why would the Libertarian Party be any better at it? If the Libertarian Party came across a belief system that was more successful at motivating voters, what would prevent the Democrats or Republicans from co-opting that belief system and using their size advantages to beat the Libertarians?
The trick would be to change the way politics operate in this country. Building a party based on reason might be the method to do this. Reason has already been successful in making gains in Washington State for the Libertarians; instant runoff voting did not flow from the traditional Libertarian principles but was a rational choice to improve the country’s democracy. Questions remain on when and how voters choose to vote with their minds rather than their emotions, but if executed properly, a rational campaign could beat the major parties by having voters dissect and discount belief based arguments.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Stadtluft macht frei
Either a cathedral or bazaar reputation universe with an isomorphic mapping of identity to agent is a scary thought. Some definitions here:
Identity: A unique ID in the namespace of a identity system
Agent: Something, usually a person, that is associated with an identity
Reputation: A rating associated with an identity
If agents are allowed multiple identities on the same reputation system, agent can always deal with a bad reputation by creating a new identity and associated reputation. This is an overall good because although bad agents can erase their bad identities to restart at zero:
1) Those bad agents can only create good reputations the hard way, by being good
2) Requiring good reputations to be only created the hard way rewards being and staying good
3) Agents that end up with bad reputations by no fault of their own (id theft, etc.) can loose those bad reputations by creating new identities
If agents are not allowed the multiple identities on the same system, #3 is lost. Agents will need to leave the reputation system in order to reset their identity. Imagine being an Ebay seller whose account was either hijacked by a bad agent or inadvertently sold bad goods because a bad supplier. The seller would have to re-establish themselves on Amazon, which may reach a smaller market than Ebay did. So the lack of multiple identities starts to hurt agents that aren't necessarily bad.
The worrying part is if identities become linked across systems. This can occur if agents and identities have a 1:1 relationship. For example, an agent just has one SSN. To the credit system, an agent has only a single identity. Now if that agent has a bad reputation on Ebay, that agent cannot start anew on Amazon. The Amazon marketplace buyers can refer to the agent's Ebay reputation.
Today there are many sites that allow agents to have multiple identities. For example, agents currently can have more than one Google account. But there is a trend towards linking agents with a single identity. Facebook ties the agent to the graduating class of their university. Linked-in ties the agent to their resume. How does a agent escape getting a bad reputation associated with their real world credentials such as place of birth, work history, or previous residences? Agents can easily hide the fact that they were seller123 on Ebay when they become seller456 on Amazon, but an agent is going to have a harder time doing so when their identity is tied to their personal history. "No, I'm a different John Smith that was born at 7:45AM in the First Hill Swedish Hospital in Seattle and went to Garfield High and UW and spent 4 years at Trilogy Software in Austin being a code monkey".
Reputation + isomorphic identity will prevent agents from starting again; moving to Alaska will not save you anymore.
http://www.goland.org/reputationsfree/
Identity: A unique ID in the namespace of a identity system
Agent: Something, usually a person, that is associated with an identity
Reputation: A rating associated with an identity
If agents are allowed multiple identities on the same reputation system, agent can always deal with a bad reputation by creating a new identity and associated reputation. This is an overall good because although bad agents can erase their bad identities to restart at zero:
1) Those bad agents can only create good reputations the hard way, by being good
2) Requiring good reputations to be only created the hard way rewards being and staying good
3) Agents that end up with bad reputations by no fault of their own (id theft, etc.) can loose those bad reputations by creating new identities
If agents are not allowed the multiple identities on the same system, #3 is lost. Agents will need to leave the reputation system in order to reset their identity. Imagine being an Ebay seller whose account was either hijacked by a bad agent or inadvertently sold bad goods because a bad supplier. The seller would have to re-establish themselves on Amazon, which may reach a smaller market than Ebay did. So the lack of multiple identities starts to hurt agents that aren't necessarily bad.
The worrying part is if identities become linked across systems. This can occur if agents and identities have a 1:1 relationship. For example, an agent just has one SSN. To the credit system, an agent has only a single identity. Now if that agent has a bad reputation on Ebay, that agent cannot start anew on Amazon. The Amazon marketplace buyers can refer to the agent's Ebay reputation.
Today there are many sites that allow agents to have multiple identities. For example, agents currently can have more than one Google account. But there is a trend towards linking agents with a single identity. Facebook ties the agent to the graduating class of their university. Linked-in ties the agent to their resume. How does a agent escape getting a bad reputation associated with their real world credentials such as place of birth, work history, or previous residences? Agents can easily hide the fact that they were seller123 on Ebay when they become seller456 on Amazon, but an agent is going to have a harder time doing so when their identity is tied to their personal history. "No, I'm a different John Smith that was born at 7:45AM in the First Hill Swedish Hospital in Seattle and went to Garfield High and UW and spent 4 years at Trilogy Software in Austin being a code monkey".
Reputation + isomorphic identity will prevent agents from starting again; moving to Alaska will not save you anymore.
http://www.goland.org/reputationsfree/
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Alexa blowback
There goes network neutrality!
http://www.nik.com.au/archives/2007/04/19/dont-like-alexa-block-it/
http://www.nik.com.au/archives/2007/04/19/dont-like-alexa-block-it/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)