📚 Quinn's Highlights

Join 📚 Quinn's Highlights

A batch of the best highlights from what Quinn's read, .

Adversarial instead of truth-seeking engagement is baked into so many aspects of our society Summary: Our society often relies on adversarial advocates for decision-making, but this approach doesn't lead to the truth. We need a cooperative effort where people are open to changing their minds and acknowledging different perspectives. This applies to civic organizations, legal systems, political systems, and even neighborhood associations. We tend to punish those who disagree with the established opinion, leading to a lack of pluralism. We should strive for diverse viewpoints and a cooperative search for the truth. Transcript: Speaker 1 There's a thing wrong with our society which is we have even the institutions that work reasonably well in our society are still often built around adversarial advocates in which the Idea is i will argue as passionately as possible for one side you will argue as passionately as possible for the other side we will deploy whatever resources we can rhetoric money etc And somehow we like to think that by i don't know interpolation that will arrive at the truth and that's totally not true right i mean i we know that there are lots of types of decision-making Where that's a disaster where what you need is not these two sides each of which are deliberately undercutting the other as effectively and including viciously as they can but you want Everybody to be willing to change their mind openly publicly to be willing to publicly acknowledge the point that the other person is making and you want to sense that people are cooperatively Working together toward the truth but that's not how most civic organizations work it's not how our legal system works it's not our political system works nowadays maybe there was Some golden age in the past but it did probably not it's not even how neighborhood associations work right i mean there may be some diversity in how homeowners associations work internally Although i regret to say i don't think that's usually true because they're usually very self-selected groups of people who are quite vocal but once they arrive at a decision they're Like good old-fashioned Maoist democratic centralists you know like well we represent the neighborhood and this is our monolithic opinion and if somebody shows up and says well i Live in that neighborhood but i i actually don't agree then they they get piled on and punished and if somebody says i'm an environmentalist but this environmental organization doesn't Speak for me or i belong to this racial or ethnic group but i don't necessarily agree with what the claimed representatives of that group say that group wants they get punished again A lack of pluralism but i think it's not just a lack of diversity it's this notion that the way to get make decisions is for everybody to hammer their stake as firmly into the ground as they Can

Glen Weyl & Cris Moore on Plurality, Governance, and Decentralized Society

COMPLEXITY: Physics of Life

An important reason why, despite the rise of asynchronous communication via services like [Slack](https://slack.com/), [Teams](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/group-chat-software) and [Trello](https://trello.com/), synchronous meetings remain so prevalent is that asynchronous dialogs often suffer from the same lack of thoughtful time and attention management that are necessary to make synchronous meetings successful. Approaches like Polis, Remesh, All Our Ideas and their increasingly sophisticated LLM-based extensions promise to significantly improve this, making it increasingly possible to have respectful, inclusive and informative asynchronous conversations that include many more stakeholders.

Plurality

E. Glen Weyl, Audrey Tang and ⿻ Community

Increasing Returns (Order) in a System is a Product of Disorder, Numerosity, and Feedback Summary: Disorder, in tandem with feedback, leads to order. Feedback occurs when information is transmitted and found by others, creating a cycle. This feedback, combined with disorder, results in the phenomenon of increasing returns, where random decisions influence subsequent decisions. Increasing returns in a system depend on disorder, feedback, and the involvement of a sufficient number of individuals. Transcript: Speaker 1 The next one on the list will be feedback. So the disorder only in tandem with feedback is going to lead to order. And the and trail again, an example, the feedback is coming from one end going out, finding something interesting as happenstance by accident. And then it leaves information. Another and finds it. And that's where the feedback starts. And this feedback is, you know, just like, I believe, Brian Arthur was talking about increasing returns. Initially, something random happens. Someone makes a random decision and a few more, say, people make a random decision. And that leads other people to not make a random decision, but make a decision based on that previous one. So this increasing returns phenomenon is a combination of disorder and feedback. And of course, the morosity, you need a few people to make it happen.

The 10 Features of Complex Systems — Part 1

Simplifying Complexity

...catch up on these, and many more highlights

Readwise.

Join 📚 Quinn's Highlights

A batch of the best highlights from what Quinn's read, .

LEARN

EXPLORE

CONTACT