8 ms·

And historically, this is how societies eventually collapse. When the participants no longer act in the greater good and instead revert to the primal instinct o

And historically, this is how societies eventually collapse. When the participants no longer act in the greater good and instead revert to the primal instinct of pure self interest. So I would suggest that it is a "scummy thing to do", since if done by the majority of actors, it results in the collapse of a society.

lowpro 7y ago
I would say societal collapse happens when regulating bodies no longer align participant self-interest with the greater good. Everyone is self-interested, which is why central authorities must step in for things that benefit individuals but hurt society such as tax evasion, pollution, and (maybe one day) fraudulent reviews. Note I'm not saying this is practical to implement or easy to do, just that central authorities exist for this very purpose.
- areyouseriousxx 7y ago
  > Everyone is self-interested Is there a citation I can refer to about this statement? I would argue that laws and regulations are to prevent the very impactful minority of actors that would willfully harm others to benefit themselves.
  - porjo 7y ago
    >> Everyone is self-interested > Is there a citation I can refer to about this statement? 'The Book of Life', page 1
    - isoskeles 7y ago
      First, this is quite condescending. Second, the "self-interest" argument doesn't excuse shitty behavior. It might be in my self-interest to steal my neighbor's wallet he forgot outside. It has money in it! Doesn't make it a good idea nor something I would consider as a "self-interested" person. Plus, it's also in my self-interest not to contribute to lowering the bar of a review system. As someone who uses Amazon and other review sites, I don't like the idea of phony reviews, so even if I worked for a company that "depended" on these reviews, I wouldn't feel good about adding to the problem (nor would I feel good that my employer supposedly needs to rely on falsified reviews).
      - tern 7y ago
        Incidentally, 'The Book of Life', page 1: https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/how-to-love/ https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/how-to-love/
      - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
        It doesn't excuse shitty behaviour. But if you start from the realistic premise that some actors are bad, the market feedback loop immediately rewards them - which forces other actors to make a choice between acting in similarly unethical ways or being punished for non-compliance. The real shitty behaviour is Amazon's. It has ultimate control over this fiasco but Bezos clearly has no interest in stopping it - and it can easily be argued that's an example of the same systemic problem with market fundamentalism, but at a higher level.
    - elhudy 7y ago
      I find that people who generally hold this opinion against others are actually projecting their own thoughts.
  - m00x 7y ago
    Neither statement is wrong. Heavily penalizing malicious actions aligns societal, and self-interest. People don't go out and murder people they don't like because it's both at the interest of themselves, and to society.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    Businesses that do not fake reviews will be buried in the search results and they will be forced to shut down when their sales stop. Its essentially evolution for companies.
  - bjterry 7y ago
    > Is there a citation I can refer to about this statement? I recently read The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life, which discusses this topic in great detail.
  - sl1ck731 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism At this point it is philosophical either way, so you aren't going to get a citation confirming yours or his statements, but this isn't an unheard of belief.
Razengan 7y ago
Yes. The normalization of deviation. After a point, anyone who points out the wrongs is seen as the deviant.
m00x 7y ago
> Don't hate the player, hate the game. Under competition, acting like this is the best way to raise to the top. If Amazon started penalizing fake reviews heavily, it would disincentivise its users to leave fake reviews. If they let companies get away with it, it'll be the only way to survive in their marketplace.
- RGS1811 7y ago
  True, and penalizing misbehavior is a big part of the solution here, but it's also true that there are practical social limits on behavior (including competitive behavior), and these can wax and wane culturally, giving rise to greater or lesser degrees of trust and good faith in commerce. ("What can I count on from people in general?")
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  > Under competition, acting like this is the best way to raise to the top Do you have evidence for that, or is it your guess? The study I am aware of on the subject concluded the best strategy in a competitive environment is to act fairly and assume fair play on everyone's behalf, but if someone crosses you, respond with all out force. I think it's called "Generous Tit-for-tat". I don't think "be shitty when you have something to gain" is recognized as a good strategy in Game Theory.
  - undreren 7y ago
    Link to that study?
    - erikpukinskis 7y ago
      I think the first time I heard about it might have been on this Planet Money episode: https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=615621554 https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor... But I'm not really sure. This Google search links to a bunch of papers on the subject. It's a well explored area of research: https://www.google.com/search?q=repeated+prisoner%27s+dilemma+study+simulation+best+strategy https://www.google.com/search?q=repeated+prisoner%27s+dilemm...
andrei_says_ 7y ago
One could say that if the Amazon’s ecosystem was a society, it’s in a late stage of collapse.
- endymi0n 7y ago
  ...only that Amazon, instead of taking this eroding of consumer trust anywhere as seriously as they should, are adding gas to the fire by introducing their own brands all over the place. Looks like they‘re going down the LinkedIn route: If you have so many business models that they start cannibalizing each other, it‘s getting dangerous.
  - User23 7y ago
    I get where you're coming from, but I remember an all hands back in the mid 2000s and someone asked Jeff, what's up with Amazon MP3 isn't that going to cannibalize our CD sales? And Jeff said, absolutely, but if we don't cannibalize our CD sales someone else will. Controlled autophagy is healthy. Coincidentally, this principle applies generally, which is why intermittent fasting is a thing.
jammygit 7y ago
Its funny to read this today. I'm working my way through Atlas Shrugged and the utopia in the book is the opposite: pure self interest > greater good, and there is a 'for the public good' apocalypse taking place. It seems to take a weird stance that self interest has to go hand in hand with productivity and free trade though, or else the sentiment is labeled anti-life or looting (or murder in later chapters). Its a bit of a strange argument, I'm not certain its as coherent as it is romantic. Anyway, the book would not be nice about how it described a company that posted fake reviews.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  The book is written by someone whose self professed philosophy is badly argued nonsense. See objectivism. If she could at least write entertainingly she could at least have done one thing right. As it stands she could have contributed more to society by selling hats. Even badly made ugly hats keep your head dry. Her books neither inform nor entertain.
- mads_ravn 7y ago
  I remember reading it years ago and thinking it was a large collection of straw man arguments (and this is perhaps too generous as it implies that there are actually reasoning present; in fact the story is more along the lines of: “heroes leave society, society collapses”). Given this, it is beyond me how much attention and how large a following the book has gathered.
  - pferde 7y ago
    It's more of "honest people leave society, society collapses". The heroism was coincidental, I find it hard to blame anyone for celebrating honesty.
    - notahacker 7y ago
      One of the notional heroes is intentionally wiping out his investors (which is OK, because every single one of them is a Very Bad Person) and another is a pirate. Whilst Stadler joining the State Science Institute is singled out as a particularly egregious example of villainy. Takes an odd definition of honesty to conclude that it's a book about celebrating honesty...
woah 7y ago
Are you serious? Thank god Amazon is not our society. If Amazon collapses because they can't handle moderating their website, there are many contenders eager to take Amazon's place.
pojzon 7y ago
Im pretty sure you know you have just described the modern society. Tho lets enjoy the ride while we still can.
jaabe 7y ago
Which society has collapsed because of this? I minored in history, and I can’t think of a single one. Even modern America was largely born out of giants of industry serving their own self interest and fucking everyone else including the climate over. Governments are build by people who serve a greater good, and they typically get replaced once they become too corrupt, but they become corrupt exactly because society as a whole is typically very self-serving.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > Even modern America was largely born out of giants of industry serving their own self interest and fucking everyone else including the climate over. Modern America, and the prosperous parts of the world more generally was built by people coming together in sweet commerce to come to a mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services, made easier by the medium of money. The giants of industry that you denigrate made things people wanted more than the money they paid to get them and the engines of capitalism made whole societies richer than the kings of a century ago in comfort, leisure, health and material goods. This is not to deny the part government and labour movements played in that miracle but if you took the wealth of Britain in 1900 and distributed it perfectly equally among the people we would still consider them wretchedly poor. Hand washing clothes, minimal indoor heating, medical care that’s on average worse than nothing, travel for leisure being a once in a lifetime experience if that, the improvements that we take for granted come from the work those captains of industry did and the work they made possible.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Modern America was built on inter alia the acquisition of huge areas of land for nothing, the business practices of companies like Standard Oil, and the exploitation of immigrant workers in conditions only slighly above slavery. > wealth of Britain in 1900 Similarly this was at peak Empire time period, when a vast British Army was marching across South Africa herding colonists into concentration camps. What part of the wealth of the Empire was really freely acquired in a mutually beneficial way?
    - 7y ago
scarface74 7y ago
To paraphrase an old saying.... The world can stay scummy longer than you can stay solvent.

lowpro 7y ago

I would say societal collapse happens when regulating bodies no longer align participant self-interest with the greater good. Everyone is self-interested, which is why central authorities must step in for things that benefit individuals but hurt society such as tax evasion, pollution, and (maybe one day) fraudulent reviews. Note I'm not saying this is practical to implement or easy to do, just that central authorities exist for this very purpose.

areyouseriousxx 7y ago
> Everyone is self-interested Is there a citation I can refer to about this statement? I would argue that laws and regulations are to prevent the very impactful minority of actors that would willfully harm others to benefit themselves.
- porjo 7y ago
  >> Everyone is self-interested > Is there a citation I can refer to about this statement? 'The Book of Life', page 1
  - isoskeles 7y ago
    First, this is quite condescending. Second, the "self-interest" argument doesn't excuse shitty behavior. It might be in my self-interest to steal my neighbor's wallet he forgot outside. It has money in it! Doesn't make it a good idea nor something I would consider as a "self-interested" person. Plus, it's also in my self-interest not to contribute to lowering the bar of a review system. As someone who uses Amazon and other review sites, I don't like the idea of phony reviews, so even if I worked for a company that "depended" on these reviews, I wouldn't feel good about adding to the problem (nor would I feel good that my employer supposedly needs to rely on falsified reviews).
    - tern 7y ago
      Incidentally, 'The Book of Life', page 1: https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/how-to-love/ https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/how-to-love/
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      It doesn't excuse shitty behaviour. But if you start from the realistic premise that some actors are bad, the market feedback loop immediately rewards them - which forces other actors to make a choice between acting in similarly unethical ways or being punished for non-compliance. The real shitty behaviour is Amazon's. It has ultimate control over this fiasco but Bezos clearly has no interest in stopping it - and it can easily be argued that's an example of the same systemic problem with market fundamentalism, but at a higher level.
  - elhudy 7y ago
    I find that people who generally hold this opinion against others are actually projecting their own thoughts.
- m00x 7y ago
  Neither statement is wrong. Heavily penalizing malicious actions aligns societal, and self-interest. People don't go out and murder people they don't like because it's both at the interest of themselves, and to society.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  Businesses that do not fake reviews will be buried in the search results and they will be forced to shut down when their sales stop. Its essentially evolution for companies.
- bjterry 7y ago
  > Is there a citation I can refer to about this statement? I recently read The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life, which discusses this topic in great detail.
- sl1ck731 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism At this point it is philosophical either way, so you aren't going to get a citation confirming yours or his statements, but this isn't an unheard of belief.

Razengan 7y ago

Yes. The normalization of deviation. After a point, anyone who points out the wrongs is seen as the deviant.

m00x 7y ago

> Don't hate the player, hate the game. Under competition, acting like this is the best way to raise to the top. If Amazon started penalizing fake reviews heavily, it would disincentivise its users to leave fake reviews. If they let companies get away with it, it'll be the only way to survive in their marketplace.

RGS1811 7y ago
True, and penalizing misbehavior is a big part of the solution here, but it's also true that there are practical social limits on behavior (including competitive behavior), and these can wax and wane culturally, giving rise to greater or lesser degrees of trust and good faith in commerce. ("What can I count on from people in general?")
erikpukinskis 7y ago
> Under competition, acting like this is the best way to raise to the top Do you have evidence for that, or is it your guess? The study I am aware of on the subject concluded the best strategy in a competitive environment is to act fairly and assume fair play on everyone's behalf, but if someone crosses you, respond with all out force. I think it's called "Generous Tit-for-tat". I don't think "be shitty when you have something to gain" is recognized as a good strategy in Game Theory.
- undreren 7y ago
  Link to that study?
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    I think the first time I heard about it might have been on this Planet Money episode: https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=615621554 https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor... But I'm not really sure. This Google search links to a bunch of papers on the subject. It's a well explored area of research: https://www.google.com/search?q=repeated+prisoner%27s+dilemma+study+simulation+best+strategy https://www.google.com/search?q=repeated+prisoner%27s+dilemm...

andrei_says_ 7y ago

One could say that if the Amazon’s ecosystem was a society, it’s in a late stage of collapse.

endymi0n 7y ago
...only that Amazon, instead of taking this eroding of consumer trust anywhere as seriously as they should, are adding gas to the fire by introducing their own brands all over the place. Looks like they‘re going down the LinkedIn route: If you have so many business models that they start cannibalizing each other, it‘s getting dangerous.
- User23 7y ago
  I get where you're coming from, but I remember an all hands back in the mid 2000s and someone asked Jeff, what's up with Amazon MP3 isn't that going to cannibalize our CD sales? And Jeff said, absolutely, but if we don't cannibalize our CD sales someone else will. Controlled autophagy is healthy. Coincidentally, this principle applies generally, which is why intermittent fasting is a thing.

jammygit 7y ago

Its funny to read this today. I'm working my way through Atlas Shrugged and the utopia in the book is the opposite: pure self interest > greater good, and there is a 'for the public good' apocalypse taking place. It seems to take a weird stance that self interest has to go hand in hand with productivity and free trade though, or else the sentiment is labeled anti-life or looting (or murder in later chapters). Its a bit of a strange argument, I'm not certain its as coherent as it is romantic. Anyway, the book would not be nice about how it described a company that posted fake reviews.

michaelmrose 7y ago
The book is written by someone whose self professed philosophy is badly argued nonsense. See objectivism. If she could at least write entertainingly she could at least have done one thing right. As it stands she could have contributed more to society by selling hats. Even badly made ugly hats keep your head dry. Her books neither inform nor entertain.
mads_ravn 7y ago
I remember reading it years ago and thinking it was a large collection of straw man arguments (and this is perhaps too generous as it implies that there are actually reasoning present; in fact the story is more along the lines of: “heroes leave society, society collapses”). Given this, it is beyond me how much attention and how large a following the book has gathered.
- pferde 7y ago
  It's more of "honest people leave society, society collapses". The heroism was coincidental, I find it hard to blame anyone for celebrating honesty.
  - notahacker 7y ago
    One of the notional heroes is intentionally wiping out his investors (which is OK, because every single one of them is a Very Bad Person) and another is a pirate. Whilst Stadler joining the State Science Institute is singled out as a particularly egregious example of villainy. Takes an odd definition of honesty to conclude that it's a book about celebrating honesty...

woah 7y ago

Are you serious? Thank god Amazon is not our society. If Amazon collapses because they can't handle moderating their website, there are many contenders eager to take Amazon's place.

pojzon 7y ago

Im pretty sure you know you have just described the modern society. Tho lets enjoy the ride while we still can.

jaabe 7y ago

Which society has collapsed because of this? I minored in history, and I can’t think of a single one. Even modern America was largely born out of giants of industry serving their own self interest and fucking everyone else including the climate over. Governments are build by people who serve a greater good, and they typically get replaced once they become too corrupt, but they become corrupt exactly because society as a whole is typically very self-serving.

barry-cotter 7y ago
> Even modern America was largely born out of giants of industry serving their own self interest and fucking everyone else including the climate over. Modern America, and the prosperous parts of the world more generally was built by people coming together in sweet commerce to come to a mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services, made easier by the medium of money. The giants of industry that you denigrate made things people wanted more than the money they paid to get them and the engines of capitalism made whole societies richer than the kings of a century ago in comfort, leisure, health and material goods. This is not to deny the part government and labour movements played in that miracle but if you took the wealth of Britain in 1900 and distributed it perfectly equally among the people we would still consider them wretchedly poor. Hand washing clothes, minimal indoor heating, medical care that’s on average worse than nothing, travel for leisure being a once in a lifetime experience if that, the improvements that we take for granted come from the work those captains of industry did and the work they made possible.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Modern America was built on inter alia the acquisition of huge areas of land for nothing, the business practices of companies like Standard Oil, and the exploitation of immigrant workers in conditions only slighly above slavery. > wealth of Britain in 1900 Similarly this was at peak Empire time period, when a vast British Army was marching across South Africa herding colonists into concentration camps. What part of the wealth of the Empire was really freely acquired in a mutually beneficial way?
  - 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

To paraphrase an old saying.... The world can stay scummy longer than you can stay solvent.