From: "Anders Sandberg" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> When we normally talk about prejudices, we do not refer to prior estimates
> but rather to the tendency of not updating estimates - especially about
> other people. This is an irrational strategy, and in itself a reason to
> trust prejudiced people less (since their actions have a persistent
> irrational component and are not based on correct estimates of the state of
> the world).
Whether or not a rational person trusts a prejudiced person will depend more
on the intentions of the prejudiced person than on the prejudice itself,
because a non-prejudiced person who wants to harm you is less worthy of your
trust than a prejudiced person who wants to help you.
> Which may actually be a good thing, since it is not a reliable predictor of
> trust anyway (ask any conman). In fact, it might be worth examining what
> trust predictors people commonly use that are *not* valid and see if they
> could be made valid or be recognized as invalid. Better trust signals can
> make our society more trusting.
One of the most common trust predictors that turn out to be false is the
religious set of signals. I've found it wise to never trust self-proclaimed
religious people, despite their dependence on public trust, because unless you
can be sure that they believe you are one of them, they may view you as an
enemy at any moment.
> A better solution is to have a web rather than a chain. A web is stronger
> than its weakest link.
Better than a web is a network... preferably one that is self-organizing and
> A problem of current attempts to find infiltrators is that they will attack
> non-infiltrators too from time to time. While some such errors are
> unavoidable and acceptable, there is a risk that pervasive infiltrator-hunts
> undermine trust more than they protect them. Suspicion does not breed
Some quips from _Out of Control_:
A network nurtures small failures in order that large failures don't happen as
The only organization capable of unprejudiced growth, or unguided learning, is
A system is anything that talks to itself.
One can imagine the future shape of companies by stretching them until they
are pure network. It will be hard at times to tell who is working for whom.
--- --- --- --- ---
Useless hypotheses, etc.:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, Cyc, Eliza, cryonics, individual
uniqueness, ego, human values, scientific relinquishment, malevolent AI,
non-sensory experience, SETI
We move into a better future in proportion as science displaces superstition.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:32 MDT