4 ms·

For the simple reason that not everyone you deal with is altruistic and has your best interests at heart. "anything [said] can and will be used against [the def

by smackay 14y ago

For the simple reason that not everyone you deal with is altruistic and has your best interests at heart. "anything [said] can and will be used against [the defendant] in the court of public opinion". Release of all information, without the required changes in human behaviour can only lead to self-censorship on a grand scale as people try and cover all the flaws an blemishes that might result in them not getting promoted (because the other candidates go to the gym more often and lead healthier lives) or getting that mortgage because you like to drink wine a little more than the average person and so your long term health might be put at risk. The list of possible problems is endless.

maxerickson 14y ago
You are committing something like the "perfect candidate fallacy". For a bank, making your future more predictable would likely just result in a different rate on the loan (either higher or lower, but they are interested in writing any loan that they think they can price sufficiently well). For the job, the candidates with better measurements would likely get promoted faster, but over time, the companies with more meaningful measurements would (should?) be more profitable, and there would probably still be interesting work for people with lesser "stats". If a measurement is leading to higher profitability, there is at least one argument that it is fair. Even for something like healthcare it shouldn't be that scary, if we (as a society) don't want predicted costs to factor into the availability of health care, then we shouldn't pretend to operate under an insurance scheme. None of that is to say I have any desire to live in a transparent society.
- smackay 14y ago
  I was not thinking of perfect candidates but rather having a lot of information that was previously inaccessible to those without means and money offers considerable scope for mischief. Even the most innocuous of habits can be used by those with a grudge or who you are in some way competing with to sow seeds of doubt and cause peers or superiors to question your motives, veracity or trustworthiness.
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    I think I get what you are saying, I guess I find such petty tyranny intolerable today, so more of it isn't very scary. (I do realize that it is often a complicated thing to deal with)
philwelch 14y ago
The flaws and blemishes are less meaningful if you can see everyone else's flaws and blemishes as well.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  Having their own flaws doesn't stop people from punishing others for those same flaws.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    In a negative-sum game perhaps. When comparing to someone else who also has flaws or blemishes, or in settings where you risk your own credibility by being a hypocrite, it won't happen.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      So if we move in this direction as a society, we'll have to make doubly sure that the total lack of privacy applies to the political and corporate decision makers as much as, or more than, everyone else.

by smackay 14y ago

maxerickson 14y ago

You are committing something like the "perfect candidate fallacy". For a bank, making your future more predictable would likely just result in a different rate on the loan (either higher or lower, but they are interested in writing any loan that they think they can price sufficiently well). For the job, the candidates with better measurements would likely get promoted faster, but over time, the companies with more meaningful measurements would (should?) be more profitable, and there would probably still be interesting work for people with lesser "stats". If a measurement is leading to higher profitability, there is at least one argument that it is fair. Even for something like healthcare it shouldn't be that scary, if we (as a society) don't want predicted costs to factor into the availability of health care, then we shouldn't pretend to operate under an insurance scheme. None of that is to say I have any desire to live in a transparent society.

smackay 14y ago
I was not thinking of perfect candidates but rather having a lot of information that was previously inaccessible to those without means and money offers considerable scope for mischief. Even the most innocuous of habits can be used by those with a grudge or who you are in some way competing with to sow seeds of doubt and cause peers or superiors to question your motives, veracity or trustworthiness.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  I think I get what you are saying, I guess I find such petty tyranny intolerable today, so more of it isn't very scary. (I do realize that it is often a complicated thing to deal with)

philwelch 14y ago

The flaws and blemishes are less meaningful if you can see everyone else's flaws and blemishes as well.

nitrogen 14y ago
Having their own flaws doesn't stop people from punishing others for those same flaws.
- philwelch 14y ago
  In a negative-sum game perhaps. When comparing to someone else who also has flaws or blemishes, or in settings where you risk your own credibility by being a hypocrite, it won't happen.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    So if we move in this direction as a society, we'll have to make doubly sure that the total lack of privacy applies to the political and corporate decision makers as much as, or more than, everyone else.