All of BrandonKMLee's Comments + Replies

There might be some clues from "Standard Voting Power Indexes Do Not Work: An Empirical Analysis" that claims population^0.9 is closer to US political reality, However a major critique of this, is that the American political system is not as diverse as the European system.

  1. "non-monetary market mechanisms" sounds like a good idea, but not necessarily something one can quantify and experiment with.
  2. John Gottman's idea of 5 positive responses per 1 negative response (healthy bound being between 0.8:1 to 20:1) as a sweet spot is somewhat useful.
  3. If one were to not rely on an organ-like structure, the number of connections per person can become overwhelming or inefficient.
  4. Fair assessment
  5. The fluidity is one thing, but the strength of the connections implies somewhat the utility of the collective, bigger unoptimized crowds lead to more burdens.

Some questions regarding Personality: If IQ (often a sub-in for Openness), Conscientiousness and Agreeableness are often more likely to be closer to genetics, what about Extraversion and Emotional Stability? Those two effect organizational efficiency (similar to Agreeableness).

Also, the nature vs nurture debate table did not include anything on sexual selection (age of sexual debut, sexual activity, mating vs parenting effort), which can affect multi-generational planning. Some postulated that fraternal birth order and birth control use can mutate one's personality, leading to more varied results.

Measure their Dark Factors, and see how much are made from exploiting others without proper education (the hustlers). Dark Factors are a way of determining coercion and selfishness.

Individuals and corporations becoming wealthy via exploitation of captive markets.

Can we also factor in Dark Core (or Dark Triad Traits) for the divergence between income distribution (what happens) and social value distribution (what is expected)?

This might suggest Dark Triad traits being the main factor of wealth siphoning (selfishness and coercion) rather than wealth creation. But at the same time it reaffirmed that IQ is worth what it is worth.

Questions to this article:

  1. How does one not see that Com can skew the aggregation game to favor things that Coms like, within the set of things that Alice and Bob likes?
  2.  Assuming good faith, how can Com explore new content preferences?
  3. As the network expands, how does one create a system that can both optimize the prediction of media preferences and aid in the creation of more remixed content for maximum pleasure, without becoming too milquetoast?

Here are some questions to note against "networks of trust":

  1. How does one increase the value of the persons entering the network (through referrals) over interaction and "training"? How does the network extract (or scale) value from people who are in the network?
  2. Are tit-for-tat too strict as feedback? Should it be tit-for-two-tat or two-tit-for-tat? What is the optimal positive-to-negative ratio? Would it be based on John Gottman's "Magic Ratio"?
  3. Are modular sub clusters made as "organs" of a bigger network, thus having divergent utilities, trusts and needs?
... (read more)
1Henrik Karlsson2y
These are some of the more interesting questions this essay has provoked.  1. I feel like my answer here will be confused, because I'm not sure I understand perfectly, and I think as I type. Firstly, I think the network can increase the value of its participants in a few ways. Culture being one. A well-curated network will have a good culture - full of trustworthy, skilled / nice people – and you get shaped by your culture, so being in a well-curated network will push you to be better. And also, in trying to get access to a good network you have shape up. And since these networks are overlapping, my friends having slightly different networks than me, there can be this positive ratchet. Its pretty obvious when I write for example: I develop ideas with my friends, and then I put the ideas out in the world, which attracts new people that I can network with, and those new connections are indirectly connected to my friends. Sometimes it gets a bit competitive, when more high value people enter the network, so that I might have less time for people I cooperated with before; but then that sort of acts as a motivator for them to up their games, be nicer, more skilled, form more valueable connections. I phrase this in a fairly creepy, exploitative way. But the feeling of its all soft, mutual aid-y, and loving. Secondly, I'm not sure one could say the network extracts value from the nodes? But it does scale their value (to a limit) through culture and, I guess, non-monetary market mechanisms, or something?  2. Yes. Tit-for-tat is too strict. I'm not familiar with Gottman, will look into him. 3. I think the implicit model in the essay, or at least the one that guides my actions at the moment is that there are no bounderies in the network. I say that because I take "organs" to indicate some sort of bounderies. What I'm talking about is every node having a unique network, and "community detection" in that scenario is just referals. There is a lot of value of forming higher l

Here is the rub against PageRank: EigenCenter, bridging centrality and other indices exists for alternative characteristics. All the web needs to do, is simply render the search engine task into a multi-objective optimization problem. Those that are popular vs those that are comparative vs those that are derivative. Attempts at optimizing the three major mode of creative operation (copy, transform, and combine) are hard but more realistic.