Just repeat what everyone else is saying. If it's proven wrong, well, everyone was wrong together. The establishment's consensus algorithm. Works until falsified by the outside world.
When is the School of Fish Strategy less effective?
In engineering, business, and war. The ability to manufacture consensus *within* your social network only partially overlaps with the skills necessary to build products, sell products, and win wars.
Consensus is still fairly important in those areas. You do need to manage teams.
But it's related to the distinction between political truths and technical truths. Is it true if others think it’s true? Or is it true regardless of what people think?
The borders between nation states are visible, but the overlap between social networks is not.
We can see the physical border between France & Germany on a map. We can't visualize the border between Twitter & Facebook. Which people are on the border, with accounts on both sites?
It's not just digital borders that are invisible, it's digital citizenship.
States can list the dual citizens of the US and Germany, but no one has the list of all dual holders of BTC and ETH.
This is how the pseudonymous economy leads to an encrypted world.
Old maps had genuine terra incognita. Places outside the ken of the civilization mapping them, mysterious places supposedly marked by "here be dragons". The phrase is apocryphal [1], but the concept is not.
We might systematize this to measure the relative effects of luck-vs-skill.
Pick N random people each year and give them X. Compare their outcomes to N people selected by a purported meritocratic mechanism, and also given X. And see how the latter do versus the former.
Sometimes people genuinely oppose a policy, but often they just distrust the people implementing it.
This gives at least four choices:
1) Abandonment: stop pursuing the policy 2) Coercion: force distrusters to obey, boosting their distrust 3) Subsidiarity: find someone the distrusters trust to implement the policy 4) Cryptoification: reduce the need for trust in the first place
Discourse today mostly focuses on (1) and (2). Should the policy be junked, or should it be forced through?
However, in theory you could use some combination of (3) web-of-trust and (4) trust-minimizing computation to attain consensus around at least a subset of policy problems.
One of the more interesting kinds of US parochialism is the refusal to accept that other cultures detest wokeness — and recognize it as the next iteration of American imperialism.
@DanielLarison is antiwar, so he should understand why this is a meme — and why the global pushback against Woke America will only grow from here on out.
Others across the political spectrum have also noticed this is old wine in new bottles.
Imagine an NBA game where players imagine they're playing for the same team, but only see their own points. That's how ideological movements work on social media today: only individual profiles, no team dashboards.
DAOs change this. Number go up means movement goes up.
DAOs are also a potential resolution to the long-running argument over whether corporations only have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders — or if they should be run by the "community", which in practice usually means the state.
A third way between (a) a small group of possibly societally-disaligned shareholders and (b) de facto nationalization by a dirigiste state is (c) many DAO coinholders with governance rights related to their skin-in-the-game.