Nice. But "what we're after is forever illegible" doesn't track with my understanding of evolution. What we have is a need countless brilliant people are currently striving to answer. Changing the language *is* possible.
One person I recommend for a glimmer of hope here is Puja Ohlhaver, whose PCARE framework addresses these social sensemaking concerns:
Another is Will Ruddick, whose work on commitment pooling can definitely be scaled. Check out his work here on Substack under Journal of a Grassroots Economist.
We're so deep in it, it's easy not to see how the forces that made this world are bringing about their own transitions into new structures. But life finds a way.
Thanks for the comment and for sharing those examples, Michael. I didn't mean to express resignation (only), there are many interesting adaptations for each layer of the compression stack, like the ones you shared.
One of the things that you mentioned, the language they use, is the first and most prominent way marketization starts. Because, why does a kid need to know what a stock market is before they know how to talk with people? "Oh! Because [nonesense]!". Is so soft. So easy to sound intelligent and well funded, but so much more dangerous and easy to spread than any other thing. Lol, look at "fast" food, now it isn't fast (and some may say it isn't food), but have no other way to see it or name it, and when hunger hits and we got no time, we think of it immediately.
The future of markets, and tying into your contract idea, is two AI assistants on either side that deeply know their person's wants running discovery against each other and negotiating to deliver that better.
A lot of great insight here. I'm reminded of Wolfram Schultz's experiments tracking VTA dopamine neuron responses during reward learning. What he found is that when a formerly neutral cue reliably predicts reward, the increase in phasic dopamine firing once elicited by the reward comes to be elicited by the cue--and, crucially, ceases to be elicited by the reward. The cue becomes a kind of fetish or surrogate for the original reward. This is the likely mechanism behind learned industriousness/contrafreeloading within the operant sphere.
Of note, when a cue is presented but the reward omitted, dopamine neuron activity drops below baseline. The reward is no longer salient, but its absence is. Unfortunately, a low dopamine state is, definitionally, a low motivational state, so it doesn't really conduce to more direct reward-seeking. Under ideal conditions, this drop in dopamine activity would loosen the association between the reward and cue and gradually bleed the latter of the significance it had stolen, but I fear the algorithms have overtrained us to the point at which extinction of cue/metric/proxy attraction has become impossible without deliberate counterconditioning.
Incredible. Your posts are unskippable. Keep it going!
Unskippable title
Nice. But "what we're after is forever illegible" doesn't track with my understanding of evolution. What we have is a need countless brilliant people are currently striving to answer. Changing the language *is* possible.
One person I recommend for a glimmer of hope here is Puja Ohlhaver, whose PCARE framework addresses these social sensemaking concerns:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5136037
Another is Will Ruddick, whose work on commitment pooling can definitely be scaled. Check out his work here on Substack under Journal of a Grassroots Economist.
We're so deep in it, it's easy not to see how the forces that made this world are bringing about their own transitions into new structures. But life finds a way.
Thanks for the comment and for sharing those examples, Michael. I didn't mean to express resignation (only), there are many interesting adaptations for each layer of the compression stack, like the ones you shared.
One of the things that you mentioned, the language they use, is the first and most prominent way marketization starts. Because, why does a kid need to know what a stock market is before they know how to talk with people? "Oh! Because [nonesense]!". Is so soft. So easy to sound intelligent and well funded, but so much more dangerous and easy to spread than any other thing. Lol, look at "fast" food, now it isn't fast (and some may say it isn't food), but have no other way to see it or name it, and when hunger hits and we got no time, we think of it immediately.
The future of markets, and tying into your contract idea, is two AI assistants on either side that deeply know their person's wants running discovery against each other and negotiating to deliver that better.
A lot of great insight here. I'm reminded of Wolfram Schultz's experiments tracking VTA dopamine neuron responses during reward learning. What he found is that when a formerly neutral cue reliably predicts reward, the increase in phasic dopamine firing once elicited by the reward comes to be elicited by the cue--and, crucially, ceases to be elicited by the reward. The cue becomes a kind of fetish or surrogate for the original reward. This is the likely mechanism behind learned industriousness/contrafreeloading within the operant sphere.
Of note, when a cue is presented but the reward omitted, dopamine neuron activity drops below baseline. The reward is no longer salient, but its absence is. Unfortunately, a low dopamine state is, definitionally, a low motivational state, so it doesn't really conduce to more direct reward-seeking. Under ideal conditions, this drop in dopamine activity would loosen the association between the reward and cue and gradually bleed the latter of the significance it had stolen, but I fear the algorithms have overtrained us to the point at which extinction of cue/metric/proxy attraction has become impossible without deliberate counterconditioning.