It’s not a scam. It’s a system that exists for people and made by people. Period. Money, outcomes and so on only have value because people assign them value. If you remove people then what you do has no value or concept of value. Life is not some video game with an omniscient score counter. Other people are the score counter.
In your lens: people are often horrible at keeping score, distracted by values that do no help them win overall.
Not necessarily a bad thing at times. Of course some chance encounter that builds a friendship or even family can be worth not winning that ball game. But actions have consequences and maybe someone else needed to win to get their goals fulfilled.
In my lens the only true score is the collection perception of the score. Not a number, not a formula and not what you think the score is. There is no external absolute counter you can point to because the collective view is the truth.
You are part of the collective, but that does not necessarily mean that your perception matters for the purpose of the score, what this thread is about. Sticking to thread, in terms of perspective on corporate world, are you a decision-maker? or do you have any significant influence on a decision-maker? if no then your perception simply does not matter for the game that is being played.
But also applies to politics you're alluding too. Every election cycle is strewn with the paper votes of much of the electorate because, although they're part of the collective, it turns out their perception didn't matter. You can pretend you opt out of the score but unless you're planning to live on in a different country/planet you cant really.
Your perception matters to you and your values. It's still important but it's a mistake to assume it has to matter to the rest of society/corporation overall
Well sure. That's why we're in this situation. We (perhaps correctly) think no one cares about us in the wider society.
There's two reactions to this. Accept this and make your own trail in life, perhaps becoming a decision maker in the process. Or find others and collect together to make sure your agreed upon ideas can and must be heard.
There is no objective score and thus people are perfect at it since the score is by definition what other people think it is. Like the value of money or stocks. Once you realize that a lot of life is significantly less frustrating.
I'd say life becomes more frustrating of you really think this extreme. You realize your values and then realize certain people with contradictoryvalues aren't part of your community, hut obstacles to overcome. Now it's not a team game, it's a battle royale. Not necessarily winner take all, but overall a lot of people will lose more than they win.
A collective sense of "score" is needed to prevent that.
It’s got nothing to do with values but value. Are you doing things that provide value. Once you realize the only measure of that is how other people perceive what you’ve done it’s a lot less frustrating. It makes thing more cooperative as you now need to work with others and communicate with others and you know that versus clinging to a siloed invalid notion of value.
That goes into what my above reply warns about. Of their "value" is something that contradicts yours, you have an obstacle, not a team working towards a goal.
If some manager's value is "I just need to phone it in and retire" and you are misson-driven, you have an obstacle. Now you're going behind the back of the obstacle trying to stand out, and essential work isn't being met. Mamager panics, has to do more work and probably chastises the other person. Each are only trying to follow what their goals "value".
We do need "values", plural. "Values" will help let out singular "value" compromise as needed. So we shift from "I just want to retire" to "okay, I'll male sure the excited one can get on bigger projects while I chill". And let's the "I want to change the world" types occasionally compromise with "okay this person needs help for a moment". It's not crushing dreams but also making sure that other collective goals are met.
> Of their "value" is something that contradicts yours, you have an obstacle, not a team working towards a goal.
The goal is to ensure that for the value someone else can offer you, you have something of equal value to offer to them in kind.
If you are useless blob, that's not an obstacle, it merely means you're not even trying to be a team player. Face life alone if you so wish, but since the dawn of time humans have leaned into social organization for good reason.
And thars why the social contract is broken. The companies aren't even bothering to reciprocate, so why care about their values if they don't care about you?
You have your own goals and the company considers you a "useless blob", no matter how you align. Becauee the only value they see in you is pushing pencils. . That's how we create a low trust society.
The social contract is broken, but I'm not sure you've correctly identified the cause.
The reality is that a lot of people have truly become useless blobs. Look at Apple's 54 billion dollar cash holdings just sitting there waiting for something of value to cash it in for. That's 54 billion dollars in promises people made to deliver value that they've never made good on. Or, to put it another way, Apple has given away 54 billion dollars in value away for free...
...-ish. Theoretically they can still seek the promises that others made for future value delivery so it isn't technically free is the truest sense of the word, but for all practical purposes it is so. What on earth could you or I ever offer in return to make good on the promise of value we made? I mean, HN tends to be a little more inventive than the general population so maybe you can I can conjure up something at some point. But the average Joe on the street? What are they going to offer to turn that $54 billion promises into actual value? Let's be realistic. At this point, it's never going to happen.
Once upon a time we got this bright idea that if everyone funnelled into university research labs we'd start to all create all kinds of new value to deliver. It was a noble thought, if a bit unrealistic. But somehow that idea got watered down into "go to university so you can get a job pushing paper around", and now the masses don't even understand what value is anymore.
"Values" is (one way) how strangers bootstrap trust, "value" is how colleagues (dare I say "compadres") maintain it.
>if everyone funnelled into university research labs
University is an excellent microcosm for analyzing the social compact breakdown, because most of the value has been created by transient workers. With levels of cooperation that any profitable enterprise will laugh at, that value, if properly appreciated, will dwarf GDP.[0]
So I'd agree with GP that values, lack thereof, both internal to academia and of society at large, was the source of the rot.
There's the idea of the long-tail that nobody talks about now, it's still quite relevant, and I'm glad HN is keeping the flame.
[0] seminaries (quasi universities) did a suboptimal values-value tradeoff compared to the Teutonic model. Bell Labs 19xx-1970 obviously had an even better model, surfing on the transience. Internship program was the magic? Values-value resonance? The secret that neither ArcInst nor OpenAI will (re)discover? (Latter too coupled to value!) The profound Ability to capture value from joe and Joe?
Think they were called "program managers" or something.. incubators of valueS. And they didn't need to say what they were working on (contradicting conventional "Apple" wisdom)
i'd love to hear more of your philosophical perspective on IP, historiographic/economic evidence that you've accumulated
> "Values" is (one way) how strangers bootstrap trust, "value" is how colleagues (dare I say "compadres") maintain it.
1. That would imply that if you and I bootstrap trust and then disappear from each other's lives for 20 years, when we finally meet again that the trust will have been lost and will have to be rebuilt. Color me skeptical. It seems to me that most people will, once established, continue with trust until there is some reason to change their mind. It does not need to be maintained, but can be destroyed.
2. Value and trust are not intrinsically linked. In fact, that is the primary reason for why we have a legal system: So that you and I can exchange value without any need to trust each other. If one of us does something stupid within that, the other can send out the hired goons to mess up one's day, thus giving strong motivation to act in good faith towards each other without the presence of trust.
> So I'd agree with GP that values, lack thereof, both internal to academia and of society at large, was the source of the rot.
Nah. Like you said, "values" are only relevant to bootstrapping trust, but trust doesn't scale. Never has, never will. Studies have shown that people can only ever get to know hundreds of people in their lifetime, and cannot even recognize more than a few thousand faces. You cannot build any kind of relevant society on communal trust. Even the smallest communities we find today have way more people than an individual can mange to keep track of. Which, again, is why we establish legal systems instead.
Maybe eons ago, when there were only 100 people on earth, we had a society where values were relevant. But the not-broken social contract being spoken of cannot be from that era. There is no record of that time.
It's going to be hard for me to argue the existence of "high trust" versus "low trust" societies, but I'm happy to accept the relative observability of functional legal regimes. From then on we can discuss whether trust in _systems of rules_ can scale.
you might not like to talk about research orgs. Though I think they are example of a __productive__ system where informal contracts are the norm --so people default to using shared "values" and "folkways" to guide their activities and interactions -- you might argue that unconstrained exploration doesn't scale either.
As for the Dunbar number, it's been popular for HNers to argue for startups that way. "Doing things that don't scale" is one contrarian moral that seem to not involve a lot of legalese at its core. Most effective company lawyers should be like managers, invisible? And startup lawyers-- shared?
Value and trust. I somehow think we agree but I flubbed the exposition. Later.
> you might not like to talk about research orgs. Though I think they are example
Are they a good example, or are they simply an example of where the stakes are low to non-existent? If the farmer fails to make good on delivering value (i.e. food), there is real risk of you staving to death. That's a problem. If a researcher fails to deliver value. Oh well...? Hell, the very nature of research is such that sometimes value will not be found so that idea is baked in.
These are delicate issues. Not least because research value takes an unpredictably (default long) time to harvest. Here's an agricultural example, which exposes some of the same. Might not be better than the above though it could move the discussion: vanilla farming
-guy discovers manual pollination, unable to capture value in his lifetime.
-people don't starve when they can't have vanilla in their soft serve, but it's still one of the more expensive spices.
-lawlessness means farmers often lose harvests to thiefs.
-Ongoing research to automate pollination (& move production to more developed polities) but I don't think the status quo is going to budge in the coming decades, mostly because the end users always get their supply
The hypothetical vanilla farmer hasn't reached a place of having value. Only after the vanilla is actually able to be captured as value does the farmer enter into trade with it. This scenario you've outlined is much like the entrepreneurial software developer in his basement working on his secret startup idea. Until he has a working MVP that people actually want to buy, he's just there on his own trying to find value to deliver.
This is not aligned with the participation spoken of earlier where the value is already established and others are giving up their value under the expectation of receiving equal value in kind. You're going down a much different road here.
Sorry again I was more interested in the ongoing vanilla automation research angle-- where the value of current research strat not established. that's why it's the last point, though contrasted by structure to the first (so the question is "better" IP infra all you need to shift the status quo, how interaction between value and values can guide design/deployment of research infra)
All examples are not hypothetical, there are indeed vanilla farmers who have demo'd enough value to buy (unregulated) shotguns+ammo, but not to DIY that,or hire goons OR proper research managers :)
(Abstract just to demo some basic convo "value", note that it's undergrad project and already paywalled :)
Trying to establish we agree on the basics, then move on to questions we're both interested in.
Edit: related thread that I hamfistedly tried to participate in, I'm guessing I'm more inclined to think this guy is providing some value, even if you discount he earned 10+ karma from this very comment -- which means the top one, less insightful imho, has like nX ??!!:)
