top | item 45228923

(no title)

docsaintly | 5 months ago

This series will really make you examine social hierarchies, including the ones that exist today. They are no accident.

discuss

order

martin-t|5 months ago

Today's social structures exist because they evolved through history and shifting incentives.

I sometimes wonder if we could design a better system today taking today's knowledge of psychology (and psychopathology) into account and optimizing for values we have today like freedom, balance of power and equality of opportunity.

k__|5 months ago

Japan seems to get at least the real estate stuff right.

No nationalization needed when houses aren't worth investing in.

Also, give people something else worth investing into. Make laws that move all the incentive out of the housing market and into something that helps in the long run. Energy, research, etc.

c22|5 months ago

I think if freedom is a desired trait then your system cannot (will not) be entirely dictated by any design.

roenxi|5 months ago

Yes, trivially. The tricky part is building a system that the median citizen (and the officers in the military) can verify has been optimised that way vs competing, poorly optimised systems that sound good. Factor in the median citizen has maybe a couple of hours to do research, isn't very principled and doesn't understand game theory well. Also consider that high status people are perfectly happy to set up an "expert" in any given field to spread propaganda favourable to them.

The problem isn't setting up a great system, the problem is what happens when charismatic leaders and people like Stalin turn up.

chewz|5 months ago

> optimizing for values we have today like freedom, balance of power and equality of opportunity.

You are confusing narrative, a positive spin with actual rules of the system. In political system they are never the same.

Freedom, equal opportunity etc are not objectives of our political system, they are just the narrative.

verisimi|5 months ago

I don't think those at the top of the social hierarchy would condone the 'better system'.

alexashka|5 months ago

We can at the very least tweak existing systems to be meaningfully better.

For example we could phase out all marketing and advertising. We could simplify and automate accounting and many other jobs. We could reduce the work week to 30 hours. We could make jobs teenage friendly and replace high schools with entry level jobs so that people get to try to be in multiple fields before they commit to years of studying anything. We could eliminate most university programs and again replace them with entry level jobs, 20 hours/week - people can study new material on their own free time and at their own pace - eliminate all memorization based learning to pass arbitrary tests and have people progress based on performance on the job. Make moving down on a career ladder or switching careers entirely a common and non-humiliating occurrence, etc.

The most pertinent question to ask is - why haven't any of these already happened? What kinds of people prevent these changes from occurring and what should be done about it? Do you know any of these people - are some of them your family members. Are you one of them? Why does no one seem to ask these questions and seek answers? :)

Terr_|5 months ago

> I sometimes wonder if we could design a better system today [...] optimizing for values we have today like freedom, balance of power and equality of opportunity.

I think it's important to point out that some people... don't seem to share the same ground-assumptions, and it's forming a rather sharp divide in modern US politics.

There's a model for analyzing "how could you think that" disagreements which I've found useful, from a (leftist) video essay:

> See, when you talk to our conservative friend, you operate as though you have the same base assumptions [...]

> Since we live with both of these frameworks [democratic egalitarianism, capitalist competitive sorting] in our minds, and most of the things we do in our day-to-day lives can be justified by either one, we don't often notice the contradiction between them, and it's easy to imagine whichever one tends to be our default is everyone else's default as well. [...]

> Your conservative friend thinks you're naive for thinking the system even can be changed, and his is the charitable interpretation [...] Many conservatives assume liberals [...] know The Hierarchy is eternal, that there will always be people at the top and people at the bottom, so any claim towards making things equal must be a Trojan-horse for something that benefits them. [...]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs

leobg|5 months ago

BF Skinner had the same idea. You can read it in his book, Walden Two.

Aerroon|5 months ago

I don't think we can. I think video game worlds (especially MMOs) have somewhat similar structures appear, where there's a portion of people that seem to become rich.

DeathArrow|5 months ago

>I sometimes wonder if we could design a better system today taking today's knowledge of psychology (and psychopathology) into account and optimizing for values we have today like freedom, balance of power and equality of opportunity.

That would work in MMO games,not in reality. If the system is not naturally evolving, it will produce tragedies. Look at communism. It was supposed to produce "a better" society but resulted in tens of millions of deaths, loss of freedom and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

eleveriven|5 months ago

You realize pretty quickly that hierarchies (then and now) are often deliberately constructed to funnel surplus upward, not just accidentally emergent

maxglute|5 months ago

Hierarchies and funnelling behavior seems to be emergent from people desiring more, and some securing it.

danaris|5 months ago

I disagree, though only slightly:

I would say that it's rare that a hierarchy is deliberately constructed to funnel surplus upward.

Rather, many hierarchies emerge organically, but those at the top seek to eliminate any that do not funnel surplus upward.

It's less a process of deliberate construction, and more a process of deliberate curation. Something like cultural bonsai.

martin-t|5 months ago

And that's why I say power must always come from the bottom.

Many people have anti-social traits which manifest by seeking power and then using it to extract value from other people at their expense.

Meanwhile the people doing real work are almost always pro-social but are too busy to play these power games, unless the power imbalance gets too large.

anon191928|5 months ago

Even YC is designed that way, they fund people that can get into MIT or stanford or harvard maybe? Others with great records are rarely accepted, this is a known fact

bestouff|5 months ago

[deleted]

IAmGraydon|5 months ago

Can we please move to a more intelligent discourse on this than “rich people are in on a giant conspiracy to keep us down”? The social hierarchy shows self sustaining intent on small scales, but by and large it has been clearly shown to be emergent and ever-evolving. Believing that someone is keeping you from moving up the hierarchy is a story you tell yourself.

martin-t|5 months ago

Nobody said it's a conspiracy. It's simple specialization. Some people are good at productive positive-sum work, others are good at office politics, manipulation and scams. The latter are good at accumulating power to extract value from the former.

Imagine a world where workers decided how much to pay their assistant ("manager") according to how much tangential effort and overhead he saves them so they can focus on their core competency.

watwut|5 months ago

> rich people are in on a giant conspiracy to keep us down

I mean, project 2025, heritage foundation, Thiel, Trump ... like in fact they are exactly on it.