Once upon a time, I read version of “why our kind can’t cooperate” , that was directed to secular people. I read it maybe decade ago, so I may misremember a lot of things, but that is what I remember:
there is important difference, in activism, that leads to the result that religious people win: they support actions even if they don’t agree with all things, while we don’t. secular organization will have people nitpick and disagree and then avoid contribution despite 90% agreement, while religious group will just call to act and have people act, even if they just 70% agree.
now i will say the important part is being Directionality Correct.
the organization that wrote this piece wasn’t thinking on things in Prisoner Dilemma terms, or Cooperation. all people and organizations here pursue their own goals.
and yet, this simple model looks like what happening now, to me. people concentrate about the 10% disagreement, instead of see 90% agreement and Directional Correctness and join the activism.
so, In My Model, game-theoretic cooperation is irrelevant to ability-to-cooperate. the point is that people set their threshold to joint the activism (the use of the word cooperate here may be confusing, as it reference to both joining someone on doing something and then do it together, and the game-theoretic concept) wrongly high—in a way that predictably results in group of people who have this threshold lose to group of people with lower threshold.
(I also don’t tend to see pointing out “you are using predictably losing tactic” as cudgel, but I also pretty immune to drowning child arguments, so i may be colorblind to some dynamic here.)
Once upon a time, I read version of “why our kind can’t cooperate” , that was directed to secular people. I read it maybe decade ago, so I may misremember a lot of things, but that is what I remember:
there is important difference, in activism, that leads to the result that religious people win: they support actions even if they don’t agree with all things, while we don’t. secular organization will have people nitpick and disagree and then avoid contribution despite 90% agreement, while religious group will just call to act and have people act, even if they just 70% agree.
now i will say the important part is being Directionality Correct.
the organization that wrote this piece wasn’t thinking on things in Prisoner Dilemma terms, or Cooperation. all people and organizations here pursue their own goals.
and yet, this simple model looks like what happening now, to me. people concentrate about the 10% disagreement, instead of see 90% agreement and Directional Correctness and join the activism.
so, In My Model, game-theoretic cooperation is irrelevant to ability-to-cooperate. the point is that people set their threshold to joint the activism (the use of the word cooperate here may be confusing, as it reference to both joining someone on doing something and then do it together, and the game-theoretic concept) wrongly high—in a way that predictably results in group of people who have this threshold lose to group of people with lower threshold.
(I also don’t tend to see pointing out “you are using predictably losing tactic” as cudgel, but I also pretty immune to drowning child arguments, so i may be colorblind to some dynamic here.)