82,247
edits
I believe: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:'''[[Credit]]''': Latin, vb (3rd pers. sing.): He, she or it ''[[I believe|believes]]''. | :'''[[Credit]]''': Latin, vb (3rd pers. sing.): He, she or it ''[[I believe|believes]]''. | ||
'''TL;DR''': A feature, not a bug. | '''[[TL;DR]]''': A feature, not a bug. | ||
[[Trust]]: a fundamental part of every legal, political, and financial system that has ever existed and one the need for which cannot be dissolved by technology<ref>Not even [[blockchain]]. ''Especially'' not blockchain.</ref>. Trust converts the single-round [[prisoner’s dilemma]] — in which a rational ''homo economicus'' would throw her conspirator under the bus — to the iterated [[prisoner’s dilemma]], in which the longer term benefits of not doing that outweigh the short | [[Trust]]: a fundamental part of every legal, political, and financial system that has ever existed and one the need for which cannot be dissolved by technology<ref>Not even [[blockchain]]. ''Especially'' not blockchain.</ref>. Trust converts the ''single-round'' [[prisoner’s dilemma]] — in which a rational ''homo economicus'' would, and therefore ''should'', throw {{sex|her}} co-conspirator under the bus — to the ''iterated'' [[prisoner’s dilemma]], in which the longer term benefits of ''not'' doing that outweigh the undeniable headrush it provides in short term. If you know you will see her again, and go through this again — or even if you aren’t pretty sure you ''won’t — the rational thing is to cooperate, at least as long as your co-conspirator does. | ||
Trust is a moral imperative, not a legal one. It derives its power from the very fact that it is not backed by any obligation. It is not a compulsion; it is a voluntary submission to the mercy of a third party in the hope of a reciprocal submission back. | [[Trust]] is a moral imperative, not a legal one. It derives its power from the very fact that it is not backed by any obligation. It is not a compulsion; it is a voluntary submission to the mercy of a third party in the hope of a reciprocal submission back. | ||
Other variations: | Other variations: | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
To trust someone is to ''take a [[risk]]''. | To trust someone is to ''take a [[risk]]''. | ||
Prevailing orthodoxy is to | Prevailing orthodoxy is to [[Taxonomy|taxonomise]], categorise, and eliminate every foible, variable, weakness, and [[risk]], as you go, delimiting, boxing, [[reductionism|reducing]] and bit-crushing risks down into their smallest components. “By so isolating and atomising risks,” the orthodox are prone to say, “you eliminate them, you see.” | ||
A great risk in the system is that posed by humans beings: all their inconstancy, unreliability, stupidity or mendacity. Thus, eliminating risk tends to be conflated with eliminating individuals, or at least the need to ''[[trust]]'' them. In this contrarian’s opinion, The Root of All Evil in the present system is any | A great risk in the system is that posed by humans beings: all their inconstancy, unreliability, stupidity or mendacity. Thus, eliminating risk tends to be conflated with eliminating ''individuals'', or at least the need to ''[[trust]]'' them. In this contrarian’s opinion, The Root of All Evil in the present system is any device which seeks to substitute data, policy, rule, or algorithm for judgement, confidence, and trust. | ||
So in the same way that rules, playbooks and policies override the judgment of and confidence in individuals, the desire to eliminate the need for trusted intermediaries in a distributed Ledger system has the same fundamental shortcoming. | So in the same way that rules, playbooks and policies override the judgment of and confidence in individuals, the desire to eliminate the need for trusted intermediaries in a distributed Ledger system has the same fundamental shortcoming. | ||