4 ms·
Hi! I like your comment, so thank you. > This persuasion can be purchased by the highest bidder Yes. In other words, they're purchasing weighted edges in the
by patcon 6y ago
Hi! I like your comment, so thank you.
> This persuasion can be purchased by the highest bidder
Yes. In other words, they're purchasing weighted edges in the social graph: buying new edges (that send peer signals toward the target within a graph of social influence), or amplifying weight of existing edges representing peer relations. The whole attention economy is not actually about the knowledge or content that flows through this network, rather it's all about buying/building/fortifying edges/connections between marks and those who will exert influence on them, in the direction favoured by the buyer. It's the shape of the network that's damaged, not the content flowing through it (which we've never had more access to). Empathy is just an existing biological solution to a similar network problem, maybe even a biological technology (sorry, can't help it with the weird jargon here -- was a biochemist in a past life).
> My idea is an app, forum, or social group which pairs individuals to discuss issues
It's a neat idea, but to be clear: why would people participate? I feel that without a self-interested reason, audience would bias toward process-oriented and highly empathic people who already care for the sake of caring. (I would participate, for instance.) imho some aspect of participation needs to give the process and participant teeth they didn't previously have, or give the participant power in a larger system. That's why people vote. That's why they run for election. That's why they join boards/committees. My mindset is interested in empathic tools primarily where they marry power-seeking and empathy together again in a new process.
It's a neat idea though, and don't take my words for discouragement pls! It's one thing to seek social/tech tools that sit beside charity or art or altruism in the cultural landscape (which it sounds like you're rolling around), but it's another to seek social/tech tools that sit alongside elections or Robert's Rules or other governance processes (where I believe Polis operates). We definitely need more people looking for opportunities here, so I'm grateful you're thinking on these things :)
- s1artibartfast 6y agoSorry for being so slow to respond. >why would people participate? I feel that without a self-interested reason, audience would bias toward process-oriented and highly empathic people who already care for the sake of caring. My thought is that the "selfish" incentive would be to make impact on an issue you care about. In exchange, you give someone a chance to talk to you about an issue they care deeply about you don't. The underlying premise is that caring and reasonable people can and do have differences of opinions. The "teeth" is giving access to likely voter will listen and not have a dogmatic position. I for example, would spend an hour to double the my effective voting power. I have little interest in running for an office, and don't think that politicians are particularly effective about changing the minds of voters. They are tied to a multi-issue platform which is incredibly cumbersome, and disinterests many individuals from the process overall.