4 ms·

All the way back in 2006, Joshua Porter wrote a really good article illustrating this principle using the example of Delicious: http://bokardo.com/archives/the-

by Elepsis 16y ago

All the way back in 2006, Joshua Porter wrote a really good article illustrating this principle using the example of Delicious: http://bokardo.com/archives/the-delicious-lesson/ http://bokardo.com/archives/the-delicious-lesson/ The gist of it: The one major idea behind the Del.icio.us Lesson is that personal value precedes network value. What this means is that if we are to build networks of value, then each person on the network needs to find value for themselves before they can contribute value to the network. In the case of Del.icio.us, people find value saving their personal bookmarks first and foremost. All other usage is secondary.

Perceval 16y ago
That's a nice restatement of Smith's 'Invisible Hand' concept.
- Kliment 16y ago
  No, it isn't. While widely quoted, out of context, Smith did not believe that a market was guided by an "invisible hand". In his book, he only mentions it once, and in a fairly limited context. His text does point out a number of situations where regulation is interfering with the optimal market state, but the bulk of the book is a description of the kind of market that would self-adjust to an optimum, and the form of regulation that would be best for creating that kind of market. So yes, organizing a community so that personal gain leads to community gain is very much in line with Smith's beliefs, but keep the "invisible hand" out of it. (If you are curious, the full text, long out of copyright, is available at several locations online, with various forms of commentary. I highly recommend the book.)
  - Perceval 16y ago
    Your comment is unnecessarily condescending. I have the unabridged text of The Wealth of Nations on my shelf, next to books by virtually ever other major political economist: Locke, Malthus, Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Engels, Keynes, Veblen, Polanyi, Hayek, Friedman, Schumpeter, and a collection of institutionalists, rational choice theorists, post-Keynesians, neo/post-Marxists and so on. The very simple fact is that Elepsis's post is quite literally a restatement of the 'invisible hand.' Here is the one passage from The Wealth of Nations where Smith uses the term: "He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. …[H]e intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never know much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good… "…[E]very individual, it is evident, can in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." Elepsis's comment highlights a quote from an article about del.icio.us saying that personal benefit comes first and without personal benefit del.icio.us not only would not work, but there would be no substantial public benefit produced. If anything, this is an even stronger statement than Smith's statement of the 'invisible hand.' Your comment is somewhat of a non-sequitur. You seem to be attacking the thesis that the market should exist entirely free from the activities of the state. This has nothing to do with my original comment. It's irrelevant if the 'invisible hand' metaphor was only used once—the fact remains that Elepsis's quote is a very straightforward restatement of the 'invisible hand' metaphor. Trying to turn that into some ideological flamewar about free-marketers is unnecessary and unhelpful.
    - Elepsis 16y ago
      I agree that the article is, to some extent, an extension of the principle... I do think, though, that most people wouldn't intuitively make the leap to applying the 'invisible hand' concept to software design. Restating a known principle in terms that make it more applicable is still valuable.
    - Kliment 16y ago
      Reading it a day later, I agree, it was unnecessarily strong, and your interpretation is correct. I am attacking the use of the "invisible hand" to mean "greed benefits everyone", a quite common (and frustrating, to me) abuse of the concept, but you are quite right that the specific use in the book does match the context - that users seeking their own benefit, unwillingly and unaware contribute to the good of the community. I am no longer permitted to edit the comment, but I offer my apology.

by Elepsis 16y ago

Perceval 16y ago

That's a nice restatement of Smith's 'Invisible Hand' concept.

Kliment 16y ago
No, it isn't. While widely quoted, out of context, Smith did not believe that a market was guided by an "invisible hand". In his book, he only mentions it once, and in a fairly limited context. His text does point out a number of situations where regulation is interfering with the optimal market state, but the bulk of the book is a description of the kind of market that would self-adjust to an optimum, and the form of regulation that would be best for creating that kind of market. So yes, organizing a community so that personal gain leads to community gain is very much in line with Smith's beliefs, but keep the "invisible hand" out of it. (If you are curious, the full text, long out of copyright, is available at several locations online, with various forms of commentary. I highly recommend the book.)
- Perceval 16y ago
  Your comment is unnecessarily condescending. I have the unabridged text of The Wealth of Nations on my shelf, next to books by virtually ever other major political economist: Locke, Malthus, Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Engels, Keynes, Veblen, Polanyi, Hayek, Friedman, Schumpeter, and a collection of institutionalists, rational choice theorists, post-Keynesians, neo/post-Marxists and so on. The very simple fact is that Elepsis's post is quite literally a restatement of the 'invisible hand.' Here is the one passage from The Wealth of Nations where Smith uses the term: "He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. …[H]e intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never know much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good… "…[E]very individual, it is evident, can in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." Elepsis's comment highlights a quote from an article about del.icio.us saying that personal benefit comes first and without personal benefit del.icio.us not only would not work, but there would be no substantial public benefit produced. If anything, this is an even stronger statement than Smith's statement of the 'invisible hand.' Your comment is somewhat of a non-sequitur. You seem to be attacking the thesis that the market should exist entirely free from the activities of the state. This has nothing to do with my original comment. It's irrelevant if the 'invisible hand' metaphor was only used once—the fact remains that Elepsis's quote is a very straightforward restatement of the 'invisible hand' metaphor. Trying to turn that into some ideological flamewar about free-marketers is unnecessary and unhelpful.
  - Elepsis 16y ago
    I agree that the article is, to some extent, an extension of the principle... I do think, though, that most people wouldn't intuitively make the leap to applying the 'invisible hand' concept to software design. Restating a known principle in terms that make it more applicable is still valuable.
  - Kliment 16y ago
    Reading it a day later, I agree, it was unnecessarily strong, and your interpretation is correct. I am attacking the use of the "invisible hand" to mean "greed benefits everyone", a quite common (and frustrating, to me) abuse of the concept, but you are quite right that the specific use in the book does match the context - that users seeking their own benefit, unwillingly and unaware contribute to the good of the community. I am no longer permitted to edit the comment, but I offer my apology.