3 ms·

I don't mean to be dense, but I'm not sure I understand your question. I take you at your word when you say you don't mean to be dismissive. I'm framing the di

by jes 12y ago

I don't mean to be dense, but I'm not sure I understand your question. I take you at your word when you say you don't mean to be dismissive. I'm framing the discussion the way I am because of how I see the issues raised in the comment to which I initially replied. Perhaps we are using different definitions for some of the terms that were used? How would you frame the discussion? I will try to respond to that if you wish.

maxerickson 12y ago
It's just a literal question. Say you don't respect someone very much. What harm does that do to them? Say you respect someone a great deal, what good does that do them?
- jes 12y ago
  Oh, got it. Thank you. If I don't respect someone very much, they lose the benefits (let's assume there are some) of trading with me, and I lose the benefits (presumably, small, if I don't respect them much) of trading with them. I think we 1) live in a division-of-labor society, and that we 2) survive best when we trade with each other on a strictly voluntary basis. So if that's the case, I think that people that are good trading partners want to have the (legitimately earned, based on past performance) respect of other people in the marketplace. Perhaps the reputation systems we see all around us are evidence of this? ("Please remember to leave positive feedback for me!") If I am a good judge of character, then someone I don't respect is likely not respected by (many?) other people as well. If our society is in fact based on division-of-labor and trading, then that person is going to have a more difficult time getting by. Thoughts?
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    The pretext of the 20 hour work week stated above is that we don't really live in a division of labor society (in the sense that material needs can be met with a fraction of the available labor). I agree that we tend to pick winners and losers, but I think a lot of the time those decisions are more arbitrary than we think they are (for example, good judges of character might conflate that judgement with appreciation for charisma without realizing it). In addition to probably being more arbitrary than we think, the winner/loser way of thinking is also self polarizing, rewarding prior success with more success and punishing lack of success. (Think about a student that gets some bad grades when they are 10. In our system, that might follow them around for decades (they don't get into a private Junior high, they don't get into Harvard...). There's no reason it should follow them into the next year of school.)

by jes 12y ago

maxerickson 12y ago

It's just a literal question. Say you don't respect someone very much. What harm does that do to them? Say you respect someone a great deal, what good does that do them?

jes 12y ago
Oh, got it. Thank you. If I don't respect someone very much, they lose the benefits (let's assume there are some) of trading with me, and I lose the benefits (presumably, small, if I don't respect them much) of trading with them. I think we 1) live in a division-of-labor society, and that we 2) survive best when we trade with each other on a strictly voluntary basis. So if that's the case, I think that people that are good trading partners want to have the (legitimately earned, based on past performance) respect of other people in the marketplace. Perhaps the reputation systems we see all around us are evidence of this? ("Please remember to leave positive feedback for me!") If I am a good judge of character, then someone I don't respect is likely not respected by (many?) other people as well. If our society is in fact based on division-of-labor and trading, then that person is going to have a more difficult time getting by. Thoughts?
- maxerickson 12y ago
  The pretext of the 20 hour work week stated above is that we don't really live in a division of labor society (in the sense that material needs can be met with a fraction of the available labor). I agree that we tend to pick winners and losers, but I think a lot of the time those decisions are more arbitrary than we think they are (for example, good judges of character might conflate that judgement with appreciation for charisma without realizing it). In addition to probably being more arbitrary than we think, the winner/loser way of thinking is also self polarizing, rewarding prior success with more success and punishing lack of success. (Think about a student that gets some bad grades when they are 10. In our system, that might follow them around for decades (they don't get into a private Junior high, they don't get into Harvard...). There's no reason it should follow them into the next year of school.)