3 ms·

> What if, there was in fact an organization comprised of people smarter than you and obviously better than you at figuring out what is true or not - and I woul

by imgabe 6y ago

> What if, there was in fact an organization comprised of people smarter than you and obviously better than you at figuring out what is true or not - and I would go further - one that can tell you how to make better/more optimal decisions than you would have made without them? > Would you then cede your decision making to them if it were demonstrably better? No. Nobody should ever have to cede their decision making authority. If this organization is so smart and right, they should have no trouble finding a way to convince people without coercion Even, if they are smarter than me, are they perfect? Is it impossible for them to be wrong? Of course not. That's why we need multiple sources. Nobody is right about everything all the time. All of this talk about "misinformation" ignores the possibility that you might one day be a source of misinformation, so it is vitally important that people be able to disagree with you.

lambdatronics 6y ago
>convince people without coercion I think OP's question was whether one would voluntarily defer to some groups' decisions. Speaking about TFA, Youtube isn't coercing anyone, technically. There's no negative externality (punishment) being implemented, only the deprivation of a service that they provide. One might argue that since Youtube is effectively a monopoly, it's different. The counterargument is that people who want a different platform are free to go elsewhere. This appears to be happening with Parler as an alternative to Reddit, for instance. To bring things full-circle: "remember, the players are not your customers -- they are your new boss." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25376714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25376714
- imgabe 6y ago
  If they were truly right, you could weigh the evidence they present and you would be convinced it is correct because they are so smart and compelling. Then you would make the decision that their evidence suggests. There would be no need to cede any authority to them, they should be able to convince you on the merits of their arguments.
  - lambdatronics 6y ago
    True. It needs to be traded against the cost of doing all that research for yourself, though. It all depends on how much you enjoy researching a subject vs. how important the conclusion is to you vs. how much you trust others to get it right.

by imgabe 6y ago

lambdatronics 6y ago

>convince people without coercion I think OP's question was whether one would voluntarily defer to some groups' decisions. Speaking about TFA, Youtube isn't coercing anyone, technically. There's no negative externality (punishment) being implemented, only the deprivation of a service that they provide. One might argue that since Youtube is effectively a monopoly, it's different. The counterargument is that people who want a different platform are free to go elsewhere. This appears to be happening with Parler as an alternative to Reddit, for instance. To bring things full-circle: "remember, the players are not your customers -- they are your new boss." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25376714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25376714

imgabe 6y ago
If they were truly right, you could weigh the evidence they present and you would be convinced it is correct because they are so smart and compelling. Then you would make the decision that their evidence suggests. There would be no need to cede any authority to them, they should be able to convince you on the merits of their arguments.
- lambdatronics 6y ago
  True. It needs to be traded against the cost of doing all that research for yourself, though. It all depends on how much you enjoy researching a subject vs. how important the conclusion is to you vs. how much you trust others to get it right.