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 Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| 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. | ||
[[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]]: 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. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
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.” | 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. | 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. Hence, a millenarian yen to rid the present system of the need for trust, replacing it with technology. To be clear here: distributed ledgers do not reinforcing trust between transactors: they ''eliminate'' it. | ||
So in the same way that rules, playbooks and policies override the judgment of and confidence in individuals | So in the same way that rules, playbooks and policies override the judgment of and confidence in individuals using them — thereby deprecating those individuals and stunting their ability to connect on an emotional level — the will to eliminate trusted intermediaries in a distributed Ledger system has the same fundamental shortcoming. | ||
''Trust is a feature, not a bug.'' | |||
By way of analogy, the conversion of a moral obligation (pick your children up promptly at the conclusion of today's session<ref>You may remember this from Freakonomics</ref>) with a financial one parents will be charged £10 per hour for late collection of children after the session) has the same effect. | By way of analogy, the conversion of a moral obligation (pick your children up promptly at the conclusion of today's session<ref>You may remember this from Freakonomics</ref>) with a financial one parents will be charged £10 per hour for late collection of children after the session) has the same effect. | ||
Social relations, friendships, emotional connections, vacation placements with colleagues' children, which modernists view as indications of graft or nepotism in the system, reinforce bonds of trust and confidence between existing market participants. | |||
This may be inequitable to outsiders and those “at the margins” who have been disenfranchised (as they are systematically deprived of the opportunities to enter the market in favour of insiders) but a decentralised ledger where no-one ''needs'' to trust others in the market is hardly a decent no substitute. You cannot banish bonds of trust. | |||
The answer | The answer is not to prevent these activities, but create alternative structures which lower the barriers to entry into relations of trust for those without the necessary connections. | ||
{{draft}} | {{draft}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||