In some disciplines, like working in an Amazon warehouse, intrinsic motivation is low and both cheating and legitimate but zero sum efforts are unlikely. There, ever greater competition for economic and social rewards generate ever better results. In other domains, like the creation of knowledge and especially the evaluation of knowledge, intrinsic motivation is relatively strong, cheating is easy or likely to succeed or zero sum situations are the default. In those domains, competition leads to the displacement of necessary activities by highly optimized forms of fraud. At the extreme, nobody argues that we need profit maximization by judges or by generals. Unfortunately, using pharmceutical companies to produce medical innovation isn't very much better and ever more commercialized and competitive academia isn't much better than that.
Nobody is confused about this. We don't have incentives this terrible by accident. Rather, there are constituencies in favor of accurate shared information and constituencies against. The latter, unfortunately have been working unopposed for a long time
Sometimes tribalism leads to the loss of gains from trade, so reality will down-regulate it. At other times it leads to gains through coalitionally resource capture. When the latter is occurring, greater 'mental health', in a biological sense, will lead to increased tribalism. We can use 'mental health' as a euphemism for 'being autistic' but doing so won't change fitness gradients. If tribalism was actually unhealthy, it would be lost by evolution like any other complex adaptation.
If we want less tribalism, or simply more gains from trade, the thing to do is almost certainly to empower less tribal people to understand it better so as to better defend themselves from it via non-tribal patterns of affiliation, which is impossible by definition if you use tribalism as a synonym for coalitional politics. Can we do better?
The consensus would converge on it being fake news. No downside to being wrong, so prediction makes would agree with this consensus.
People with professional skills relevant to evaluating the claims who denied the data would rapidly rise to the top of their professions.
I'm pretty certain that I can pass the ITT for both law and tool thinking, but it's complicated because undwrneath Tool Thinking is the belief that there are things about thinking that need to be concealed, which implies that it will generally oppose an accurate account of it's actual beliefs. In Law Thinking, every truth reveals every other truth and concealment is impossible in theory and impractical in the long term in practice. If things need to be concealed, it's important to oppose the possibility of inference.
Wasn't your old rule officially "don't lie to someone unless you would also feel good about slashing their tires given the opportunity?" Or something very close to that? That already solves the standard Kantean problems.
Why doesn't any monochromatic light not on the natural spectrum of an element do it? Or rather, any cluster of nearby frequencies to accommodate redshift.
Also, NVC is more like passive aggressive communication than explicit communication.
I bought 200 BTC and lost them in a hack. Later bought 50 ether and kept them in a wallet, so I still have those. In light of that, I'd say security was pretty important!
Good point. Largely depends on how many 'fundamentals' investors there are in debt relative to 'speculative' investors.