Comments on: Strategic Opinions

By: wilkinson

wilkinson — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:44:07 +0000

[...] the more we feel free to express distinctive opinions and expect others to agree, or at least nothttp://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/06/17/strategic-opinions/Trevor Wilkinson maker of British sports cars 85 San Diego Union-TribuneTrevor Wilkinson, the [...]

By: mk

mk — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:30:52 +0000

In other words, minimize risk by choosing a randomized blend of different strategies.

By: mk

mk — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:29:03 +0000

Intellectual mirroring can serve useful purposes, such as increasing trust and enabling cooperation. The decision to mirror or not to mirror should be a pragmatic one, driven by considerations like the likelihood of future cooperation, the anticipated benefits of dominant behavior, the risk of being wrong, etc.

In most cases this is hard to figure out so I think a reasonable heuristic is simply to make a more or less random decision, and then compensate for earlier errors based on how you feel. If you regret being overly cooperative, be annoying about the next thing that comes along.

By: RobinHanson

RobinHanson — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:16:28 +0000

Consider the strut. It is a signal of dominance, but if you to use it without the power to back it up, you may be severely punished. Same with trying to offer distinctive opinions when you aren't respected enough for others to take them seriously.

By: Micah Tillman

Micah Tillman — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:58:22 +0000

I'd have to argue that one's tendency to want a herd about one is more than pragmatic, however. More fundamentally, isn't it that we want to be valued, to not be rejected (to feel alone)?

After all, without difference between yourself and another, you can't feel threatened by him/her. Hence Locke's view of the body politic. (If we all pretend we're one “body,” we'll all be less likely to feel threatened by each other, and thus less likely to get into altercations).

By: Publius

Publius — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:29:55 +0000

This goes back to Nietzche's slave v. master morality doesn't it? The issue, which you touch on, is that we have a tendency to go along with our peers because that works well for the 99% of decisions we make every moment of our lives. The problem is that many of the points of contention are in that 1% where going along with your peers is unwise (that is not to say they are correct, but that there is little to no reason to suspect they are correct)

By: mk

mk — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:30:52 +0000

In other words, minimize risk by choosing a randomized blend of different strategies.

By: mk

mk — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:29:03 +0000

By: RobinHanson

RobinHanson — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:16:28 +0000

By: Micah Tillman

Micah Tillman — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:58:22 +0000

I'd have to argue that one's tendency to want a herd about one is more than pragmatic, however. More fundamentally, isn't it that we want to be valued, to not be rejected (to feel alone)?