3 ms·

That exactly is the trust problem. Why would trustworthy people even try to gain power, if the public assumes that those in power are untrustworthy and corrupt?

That exactly is the trust problem. Why would trustworthy people even try to gain power, if the public assumes that those in power are untrustworthy and corrupt? And why would those in power remain trustworthy when the incentives are clearly in favor of abusing your power and the public assumes that you will do that anyway? It's a vicious cycle, but a virtuous cycle would also work in the same way. Reality shapes people's expectations, and people's expectations shape reality.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> That exactly is the trust problem. Why would trustworthy people even try to gain power, if the public assumes that those in power are untrustworthy and corrupt? To improve society. > And why would those in power remain trustworthy when the incentives are clearly in favor of abusing your power and the public assumes that you will do that anyway? They were never trustworthy to begin with if they do that. Trustworthy does not mean "acts to benefit themselves over others at every opportunity".
- canadaduane 5y ago
  "never trustworthy to begin with" seems similar to the No True Scotsman[1] fallacy. I've been in religious circles where it's very important to defend the idea that once you believe, you're saved. But there's a darker side to that idea, because in order to maintain belief in the face of someone doubting and leaving the faith, everyone in the faith explains it away with "Oh, they never Really Believed in the first place." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    I can't see any connection to that fallacy. The question was about remaining trustworthy when incentives don't align. Being trustworthy when incentives do align means nothing at all though, does it?
    - canadaduane 5y ago
      People change. Environments can change people--not just incentives. "He was worthy of my trust, and now he's not" is a better framing when encountering new information than "he was never trustworthy to begin with" IMO.
- JoshuaDavid 5y ago
  > > Why would trustworthy people even try to gain power > To improve society. Is gaining power the most efficient way for a trustworthy and ethically constrained person to improve society? Keep in mind that if you answer that question "yes", you need to believe that attempting to gain power and use it ethically and responsibly is more effective at helping people than trying to earn a bunch of money and throwing it at GiveWell's top charities[1], after adjusting for chance of success, which is a pretty high bar to clear. [1] https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > Is gaining power the most efficient way for a trustworthy and ethically constrained person to improve society? I don't know, I doubt anybody really knows. I suspect it would highly depend on the individual and the circumstance they find themselves in. Either way people do things that are not "the most efficient" all the time in all areas of their lives. > Keep in mind that if you answer that question "yes", you need to believe that attempting to gain power and use it ethically and responsibly is more effective at helping people than trying to earn a bunch of money and throwing it at GiveWell's top charities[1], after adjusting for chance of success, which is a pretty high bar to clear. I don't answer yes. I think a lot of charity work has pretty dismal results in improving society at a large scale to be honest, but that's another story. In any case it's quite possible to do both. Most political offices come with a salary.
    - JoshuaDavid 5y ago
      > I don't answer yes. I think a lot of charity work has pretty dismal results in improving society at a large scale to be honest, but that's another story. In any case it's quite possible to do both. Most political offices come with a salary. I find it unlikely that attempting to optimize somewhat for both effective charitable contributions and climbing the political ladder is likely to result in better outcomes than focusing your full attention on either goal individually. (Also r.e. charity work frequently having dismal results, that is why I specified "givewell's top picks" not "The Foundation for Curing Rare Cancers in Cute Puppies"). I do think that there probably are cases where your best bet for causing the change you want to see is going into politics, but I don't think that politics are high enough value that just being a generically ethical person trying to climb the ladder will have a sufficient positive impact to make it a better course of action than the alternatives. Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of climbing that ladder though, or underestimating the potential for change.
lmm 5y ago
This seems like one of those situations where there's no silver bullet, no quick fix, just the long hard slog of rebuilding bit by bit.
sgustard 5y ago
These conditions (power breeds corruption) have been true since the birth of democracy. And yet you could argue democracy in the US has a reasonable track record, with only the occasional civil war. Why is now the time it is under such attack?
- dmpk2k 5y ago
  Increased availability of information. It is far harder now to control the flow of information, as some Middle Eastern leaders discovered in 2011, and a short while later the various democracies of the world. Consider a little the meaning of us having such a discussion here on HN.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

> That exactly is the trust problem. Why would trustworthy people even try to gain power, if the public assumes that those in power are untrustworthy and corrupt? To improve society. > And why would those in power remain trustworthy when the incentives are clearly in favor of abusing your power and the public assumes that you will do that anyway? They were never trustworthy to begin with if they do that. Trustworthy does not mean "acts to benefit themselves over others at every opportunity".

canadaduane 5y ago
"never trustworthy to begin with" seems similar to the No True Scotsman[1] fallacy. I've been in religious circles where it's very important to defend the idea that once you believe, you're saved. But there's a darker side to that idea, because in order to maintain belief in the face of someone doubting and leaving the faith, everyone in the faith explains it away with "Oh, they never Really Believed in the first place." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I can't see any connection to that fallacy. The question was about remaining trustworthy when incentives don't align. Being trustworthy when incentives do align means nothing at all though, does it?
  - canadaduane 5y ago
    People change. Environments can change people--not just incentives. "He was worthy of my trust, and now he's not" is a better framing when encountering new information than "he was never trustworthy to begin with" IMO.
JoshuaDavid 5y ago
> > Why would trustworthy people even try to gain power > To improve society. Is gaining power the most efficient way for a trustworthy and ethically constrained person to improve society? Keep in mind that if you answer that question "yes", you need to believe that attempting to gain power and use it ethically and responsibly is more effective at helping people than trying to earn a bunch of money and throwing it at GiveWell's top charities[1], after adjusting for chance of success, which is a pretty high bar to clear. [1] https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > Is gaining power the most efficient way for a trustworthy and ethically constrained person to improve society? I don't know, I doubt anybody really knows. I suspect it would highly depend on the individual and the circumstance they find themselves in. Either way people do things that are not "the most efficient" all the time in all areas of their lives. > Keep in mind that if you answer that question "yes", you need to believe that attempting to gain power and use it ethically and responsibly is more effective at helping people than trying to earn a bunch of money and throwing it at GiveWell's top charities[1], after adjusting for chance of success, which is a pretty high bar to clear. I don't answer yes. I think a lot of charity work has pretty dismal results in improving society at a large scale to be honest, but that's another story. In any case it's quite possible to do both. Most political offices come with a salary.
  - JoshuaDavid 5y ago
    > I don't answer yes. I think a lot of charity work has pretty dismal results in improving society at a large scale to be honest, but that's another story. In any case it's quite possible to do both. Most political offices come with a salary. I find it unlikely that attempting to optimize somewhat for both effective charitable contributions and climbing the political ladder is likely to result in better outcomes than focusing your full attention on either goal individually. (Also r.e. charity work frequently having dismal results, that is why I specified "givewell's top picks" not "The Foundation for Curing Rare Cancers in Cute Puppies"). I do think that there probably are cases where your best bet for causing the change you want to see is going into politics, but I don't think that politics are high enough value that just being a generically ethical person trying to climb the ladder will have a sufficient positive impact to make it a better course of action than the alternatives. Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of climbing that ladder though, or underestimating the potential for change.

lmm 5y ago

This seems like one of those situations where there's no silver bullet, no quick fix, just the long hard slog of rebuilding bit by bit.

sgustard 5y ago

These conditions (power breeds corruption) have been true since the birth of democracy. And yet you could argue democracy in the US has a reasonable track record, with only the occasional civil war. Why is now the time it is under such attack?

dmpk2k 5y ago
Increased availability of information. It is far harder now to control the flow of information, as some Middle Eastern leaders discovered in 2011, and a short while later the various democracies of the world. Consider a little the meaning of us having such a discussion here on HN.