Sorry, do you mean this is "obviously" true for all humans, or only frame controllers? If the latter, I would consider this form of understanding intents useful Bayesian evidence for someone being a frame controller.
Frame control is an effect; very often, people who frame control will not be aware that this is what they’re doing, and have extensive reasoning to rationalize their behavior that they themselves believe. If you are close to a frame controller and squinting at them to figure out “are they hiding intent to control me,” you often will find the answer is “no.”
I wonder if you can infer de facto intent from the consequences, ie, not the intents-that-they-think-they-had, but more the intents they actually had.In particular, a lot of motivated cognition often makes people not "believe" that the beliefs they explicit hold just-so-conveniently lead to giving them greater power and status, etc. But usually the degree of this reality warping isn't absolute.I'd be interested in dispassionately examining potential frame controller's actions and noting whether their actions and justifications just so conveniently happen to always lead to them getting large personal gains at little personal cost, while incurring large costs (especially autonomy) of others.
Confused what "believe it" means.
Have people considered just making a survey and sending it out to former Leverage staff? This really isn't my scene but it seems like while surveys have major issues, it's hard for me to imagine that surveys are worse at being statistically representative than qualitative accounts that went through many selection filters,
Anna Salamon:So, I think... So, look, I - mm. It's hard to say all the things in all the orders at once. I'm going to say a different thing and then I'll [inaudible], sorry.So, once upon a time I heard from a couple junior staff members at CFAR that you were saying bad things to them about me and CFAR.Geoff Anders:Believe it.Anna Salamon:I forget. They weren't particularly false things. So that I don't accidentally [inaudible]-
Anna Salamon:So, I think... So, look, I - mm. It's hard to say all the things in all the orders at once. I'm going to say a different thing and then I'll [inaudible], sorry.
So, once upon a time I heard from a couple junior staff members at CFAR that you were saying bad things to them about me and CFAR.Geoff Anders:Believe it.Anna Salamon:I forget. They weren't particularly false things. So that I don't accidentally [inaudible]-
Thanks, appreciate the diagnosis!
Feels like a sleight-of-hand to me that your post did not make clear.
Hmm so framed another way, I think the claim is that capitalism previously had created inner optimizers in individuals interested in "high quality craftsmanship," but over time the alignment problem has been better solved with more optimization power and now individuals/companies are better optimized for selling goods. Does this sound like an accurate paraphrase of your position? (FWIW it sounds pretty plausible to me)
As clone of saturn noted, one need not posit a conspiracy for planned obsolescence to occur. The ordinary process of increasing profits combined with information asymmetry is more than sufficient. I wouldn't go as far as saying that the old products are better, but I'd suspect that over time, manufacturers starting placing greater emphasis on "what will sell" relative to "what represents high quality craftsmanship."
I understand how this can be an explanation for level effects, but not how this can explain the delta.
I think that model would not predict the result at 0:06, fwiw.