an excellent observation, broadly true IME; many have difficulty conceptualizing the mechanism of action in decentralized systems, understandably so, as emergence & convergent evolution is complex & legitimately difficult to understand. how can things happens w/o smth doing them?
---
RT @kaschuta
Humans want to attribute agency because causal chains are how we learn and interact with the world. In reality, especially in large, complex sys…
https://twitter.com/kaschuta/status/1435889956166189062
it's interesting how different groups are able to grok certain types of decentralized systems but not others. compare the sets of people who understand markets vs that which understands antifa; some overlap, but broadly disjoint sets.
where does this different stem from?
I posit that the divergence is one of values and theory of change, specifically in how one envisions the relationship between the two. does change flow from values? are values even relevant? can groups with differing values collaborate on large projects? if so, what is necessary?
some believe that only unity of purpose can truly motivate people to work together for a common goal; some shared vision of the future, a common raison d'etre, a compatible way of approaching problems & making decisions. this theory of change is often applied in far-wing politics
on the other hand, some people prioritize more meta-level values, those which govern how people who disagree can go about collaborating and coexisting. they care about things like discussion norms, rules of engagement, boundaries of acceptable discourse, alignment thru incentives
these groups tend to be willing to work with those who have vastly different beliefs, politics, visions for the future, so long as they agree on the rules of the game. the fundamental values here are those of liberty, as opposed to those of justice commonly held by the former.
my thought is that these differences can explain why the former group understands justice-motivated decentralized collaborations like grassroots activism, but fails to grok market mechanisms, command hierarchies, and other systems that operate based on incentives, not beliefs
of course, this almost certainly doesn't explain all the inability to grasp these phenomena; the modern world is a massively complex chaotic ensemble of interacting systems with many emergent N-ary effects which are nigh impossible to predict in advance. but it may explain part.
living through singularities is difficult in normal times, if there is such a thing, but as of late these keep coming hard and fast; is it any wonder many people become perpetually future-shocked in the face of an increasingly-incomprehensible world?
---
RT @pee_zombie
cognitive calcification is a natural part of the lifecycle; once you've figured out a general algo & have settled into a comfortable routine, there's seldom a need for …
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1432433070339235850
consider those who refuse to hold discussions with people who don't share their object-level goals, who take hard-line positions and refuse to discuss nuance or compromise. these groups tend to be very aligned in purpose, but have difficulty growing, accepting only true believers