5 ms·

Users today are users yesterday and tomorrow. People will be people. Betting against human nature comes with very, very, very long odds. Far better to organise

Users today are users yesterday and tomorrow. People will be people. Betting against human nature comes with very, very, very long odds. Far better to organise a system by accepting human nature and working with it than against it. Safe by default, opt in, privacy protecting by default, etc, etc. People care, they do, but the feedback loop from shiny feature to creeping authoritarianism is too long for monkey brains to grasp. What you call lazy, I call dopamine. You can't expect us naked apes to just ignore that hit. Change the game instead. It's easy to blame it on "people". But if we put ourselves in a situation where we rely on us fallible beings swimming upstream day after day, on snowflakes feeling responsible for the avalanche, do we then really have anyone to blame but ourselves?

seph-reed 7y ago
I have a half-baked theory... one which is not mine to bring to fruition alone, should it even be of value: the relationship between referees and players is probably the best analogy to a functional world order plausible. The players can't have a say on the rulings, and the refs shouldn't have an opinion on the winners. In other words, you're either in the game, or out, but never both. I imagine a world where there's a very clear delineation between people who are currently in and currently out. When you're in, you go with the flow. You follow your heart, sing, dance, try to be happy, be creative. And when you're out, that shits a no go. You remember what it was like to be emotional, you empathize, but decisions must be strictly non-impulsive. People take turns going from one side to the other. Too long on either side and you'd lose sight, ruin the game. It's also kind of analogous to trip-sitters.
- pdkl95 7y ago
  > You remember what it was like to be emotional, you empathize, but decisions must be strictly non-impulsive. Bruce Sterling called that group "Zen Serotonin" in his novel Schismatreix[1] about posthuman ideologies. They enforced their "strictly non-impulsive" zen-like calm with biomonitor-regulated sci-fi drugs. They advocated strongly for social order and slowing the rate of social change. My username ("pdkl95") is based on the opposite ideology. It is another sci-fi drug from Schismatrix, used by another ideological faction to force (often destructively, as brain damage) a change in perspective; it forces someone out of the comfortably familiar paradigm that Zen Serotonin tried to maintain. This "clear delineation" between groups will eventually happen. All species eventually fracture into separate daughter-species. Instead of finding different ecological niches, human will speciate into different ideological niches. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismatrix#Ideologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismatrix#Ideologies
kleer001 7y ago
According to Lao Tzu: “The best leaders are those the people hardly know exist. The next best is a leader who is loved and praised. Next comes the one who is feared. The worst one is the leader that is despised. If you don't trust the people, they will become untrustworthy. The best leaders value their words, and use them sparingly. When she has accomplished her task, the people say, "Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!"

seph-reed 7y ago

I have a half-baked theory... one which is not mine to bring to fruition alone, should it even be of value: the relationship between referees and players is probably the best analogy to a functional world order plausible. The players can't have a say on the rulings, and the refs shouldn't have an opinion on the winners. In other words, you're either in the game, or out, but never both. I imagine a world where there's a very clear delineation between people who are currently in and currently out. When you're in, you go with the flow. You follow your heart, sing, dance, try to be happy, be creative. And when you're out, that shits a no go. You remember what it was like to be emotional, you empathize, but decisions must be strictly non-impulsive. People take turns going from one side to the other. Too long on either side and you'd lose sight, ruin the game. It's also kind of analogous to trip-sitters.

pdkl95 7y ago
> You remember what it was like to be emotional, you empathize, but decisions must be strictly non-impulsive. Bruce Sterling called that group "Zen Serotonin" in his novel Schismatreix[1] about posthuman ideologies. They enforced their "strictly non-impulsive" zen-like calm with biomonitor-regulated sci-fi drugs. They advocated strongly for social order and slowing the rate of social change. My username ("pdkl95") is based on the opposite ideology. It is another sci-fi drug from Schismatrix, used by another ideological faction to force (often destructively, as brain damage) a change in perspective; it forces someone out of the comfortably familiar paradigm that Zen Serotonin tried to maintain. This "clear delineation" between groups will eventually happen. All species eventually fracture into separate daughter-species. Instead of finding different ecological niches, human will speciate into different ideological niches. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismatrix#Ideologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismatrix#Ideologies

kleer001 7y ago

According to Lao Tzu: “The best leaders are those the people hardly know exist. The next best is a leader who is loved and praised. Next comes the one who is feared. The worst one is the leader that is despised. If you don't trust the people, they will become untrustworthy. The best leaders value their words, and use them sparingly. When she has accomplished her task, the people say, "Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!"