Theme: Cooperation

  • PROBLEM OF PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM (Paper by Barbara Oakley) Um… the mainstream

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/19/pathological-altruism-the-road-to-hell-rTHE PROBLEM OF PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM

    (Paper by Barbara Oakley)

    Um… the mainstream begins to figure out what conservatives and austrians have known for the past century: attempts to help people generally harm them, and government harms them most of all.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-19 11:34:00 UTC

  • INTERNET ISN’T AN INDIVIDUAL PURSUIT, IT’S SOMETHING WE DO WITH EACH OTHER” A ye

    http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/1/4279674/im-still-here-back-online-after-a-year-without-the-internet”THE INTERNET ISN’T AN INDIVIDUAL PURSUIT, IT’S SOMETHING WE DO WITH EACH OTHER”

    A year without the internet.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-05-11 10:32:00 UTC

  • “Diversity without commonality is not community, it’s estrangement.” Today’s rhe

    “Diversity without commonality is not community, it’s estrangement.”

    Today’s rhetorical gem.

    See Sowell’s post on diversity as a substitute for thought.

    The evidence is in, that diversity is a bad. And that the people who promote it are seeking status at others expense.

    But facts aren’t important.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-05-08 13:34:00 UTC

  • What Are Some American (us) Ways That Cause People From Other Cultures To Find Them Hard To Work With?

    For whom are they hard to work with?

    We follow the Protestant Work Ethic. Tell the truth, the whole truth, up front, make a promise and stick to it regardless of change.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-American-US-ways-that-cause-people-from-other-cultures-to-find-them-hard-to-work-with

  • DATA ON TRUST VS PACK INSTINCT? We have a lot of data describing the different l

    DATA ON TRUST VS PACK INSTINCT?

    We have a lot of data describing the different levels of trust between cultures. But does anyone know of any data that deals with the different levels of pack (group) instinct between cultures. Aboriginal Americans, and East Asians seem at the extreme. Turkic, semitic peoples, in the middle and Indo Europeans in the middle and africans at the low end.

    For example, we know that as babies, asians are more pliable, whites in the middle and africans at the lowest. That’s a pretty good data set, even if it’s certainly open to criticism.

    It’s all good to intuit this. But how can I test it? Any data anywhere?


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-26 02:02:00 UTC

  • Should The Personal Socio-political Views Of Individuals Working At A Company Dissuade Potential Job Applicants If They Disagree With Those Beliefs?

    REALITY:
    People organize.  They organize to their advantage. Especially where that advantage is mating preference, easier communication and collaboration, . 

    When people organize, they organize by race, class, culture, gender, religion and political association.  They organize by neighborhood, by type of work, and by professional association. In the USA, class and race have the most influential and visible biases.

    As consumers people do not organize in the consumption of commodity goods and services, but they do organize in the consumption of specialized goods and services.

    For people to organize by political association, they must desire either to change the status quo, or to resist change in the status quo.

    There are very big bureaucratic companies, that because of size, are politically antiseptic to the point where political discussion is taboo.  There are small and medium sized organizations where they actively select for political affilliation.  It is very hard for a conservative to be hired by a left wing non profit organization, and it is very hard for an ideological liberal to be hired or work in, a firm where every individual is personally accountable for financial results.

    This is because people with similar political affiliations have similar value systems, and in many companies subjective preferences are meaningful to how they get along.  Further, some industries are biased one direction or the other because of both values, and because of the signals associated with certain types of careers. 

    While most companies ostensibly have policies against hiring for anything other than skill and experience, the fact is that everyone hires for ‘fit’ into the culture. In most businesses this means fitting into  a business model that self selects: a tradesman (conservative) an entrepreneurial culture (libertarian), a care-taking culture (progressive) or a bureaucratic culture (postmodern). 

    I cannot see the logic of working within an organization that contains a lot of people whose views you disagree with. The job is at a very high cost in opportunity to you, and at a very high cost of friction to you and others.  THe only reason that makes sense is if you want to draw attention to yourself. And usually this is because your self perceived status is higher than other people treat you. Or that you have psychological issues outside of the workplace that you want to exercise within a workplace where people have less easy means of walking away from, or avoiding you.  If there is some place that you would very much like to work, then the question remains why you should impose upon those people your beliefs and desires that are arguably external to the work place.  And instead, it may be wise to work elsewhere.

    https://www.quora.com/Should-the-personal-socio-political-views-of-individuals-working-at-a-company-dissuade-potential-job-applicants-if-they-disagree-with-those-beliefs

  • Should The Personal Socio-political Views Of Individuals Working At A Company Dissuade Potential Job Applicants If They Disagree With Those Beliefs?

    REALITY:
    People organize.  They organize to their advantage. Especially where that advantage is mating preference, easier communication and collaboration, . 

    When people organize, they organize by race, class, culture, gender, religion and political association.  They organize by neighborhood, by type of work, and by professional association. In the USA, class and race have the most influential and visible biases.

    As consumers people do not organize in the consumption of commodity goods and services, but they do organize in the consumption of specialized goods and services.

    For people to organize by political association, they must desire either to change the status quo, or to resist change in the status quo.

    There are very big bureaucratic companies, that because of size, are politically antiseptic to the point where political discussion is taboo.  There are small and medium sized organizations where they actively select for political affilliation.  It is very hard for a conservative to be hired by a left wing non profit organization, and it is very hard for an ideological liberal to be hired or work in, a firm where every individual is personally accountable for financial results.

    This is because people with similar political affiliations have similar value systems, and in many companies subjective preferences are meaningful to how they get along.  Further, some industries are biased one direction or the other because of both values, and because of the signals associated with certain types of careers. 

    While most companies ostensibly have policies against hiring for anything other than skill and experience, the fact is that everyone hires for ‘fit’ into the culture. In most businesses this means fitting into  a business model that self selects: a tradesman (conservative) an entrepreneurial culture (libertarian), a care-taking culture (progressive) or a bureaucratic culture (postmodern). 

    I cannot see the logic of working within an organization that contains a lot of people whose views you disagree with. The job is at a very high cost in opportunity to you, and at a very high cost of friction to you and others.  THe only reason that makes sense is if you want to draw attention to yourself. And usually this is because your self perceived status is higher than other people treat you. Or that you have psychological issues outside of the workplace that you want to exercise within a workplace where people have less easy means of walking away from, or avoiding you.  If there is some place that you would very much like to work, then the question remains why you should impose upon those people your beliefs and desires that are arguably external to the work place.  And instead, it may be wise to work elsewhere.

    https://www.quora.com/Should-the-personal-socio-political-views-of-individuals-working-at-a-company-dissuade-potential-job-applicants-if-they-disagree-with-those-beliefs

  • What Is The Libertarian Position On The Phoebus Cartel?

    The libertarian position is often misinterpreted.  We do not suggest that cartels will not form. Rather, that cartels are not sustainable.   Our position is that they aren’t sustainable, nor are monopolies, without government support.  If they are sustainable, then they’re probably market-efficient, and therefore not a cartel in practice -although its pretty difficult to imagine such a thing.

    The counter argument is that government interference can end cartels more quickly than the market.  Although this is both questionable and comes at a very high price: Phone service was a lot better Before the breakup of ATT, and the attack on MIcrosoft was an attack on the desire of a company to give us for free what others wanted money for.

    (One concern: I am not confident that the land problem has been solved however – or that it matters. But I think it is arguable that the problem of land cannot be solved without war  on one end of the spectrum and restricted reproduction on the other.)

    As others have noted, the Phoebus cartel did disappear quickly. So I assume that you were simply confused by the difference between whether cartels are possible or whether they’re sustainable.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-libertarian-position-on-the-Phoebus-cartel

  • DID BRAUDEL UNDERSTAND: THE PROBLEM IS TRUST? I don’t think so. Any other opinio

    DID BRAUDEL UNDERSTAND: THE PROBLEM IS TRUST?

    I don’t think so. Any other opinions?


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 06:34:00 UTC

  • What Should Be Humanity’s Goal?

    A homogeneity of interests would lead us to become evolutionarily vulnerable   The question implies it’s a good. When in fact, the question is rather, “humanity as a whole should not have a goal, only an agreed upon means of achieving dispararte goals. To do otherwise is the presumption of knowledge.

    Our only shared goal is to persist.

    https://www.quora.com/What-should-be-humanitys-goal