Difference between revisions of "Asymmetric institution"
(→Examples of asymmetric institutions) |
(→Examples of symmetric institutions) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Examples of symmetric institutions== | ==Examples of symmetric institutions== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Symmetric institutions/weapons have the property that the effectiveness does not depend on who is using it (although there are things like offense vs defense issues). | ||
* violence | * violence | ||
Revision as of 01:35, 29 November 2020
An asymmetric institution is an institution or mechanism which gives influence asymmetrically based on some property.
Contents
Examples of asymmetric institutions
- science: gives status/influence to researchers who generate hypotheses that third parties can replicate; this means that most people's pet theories do not be promoted by science
- betting:
- debate (of the civil/rational kind, not a shouting match):
- charity evaluation based on some strict criteria: GiveWell gains influence by evaluating charities, but it cannot promote any charity it wishes; it can only promote e.g. charities whose interventions perform well under a randomized controlled trial
Examples of symmetric institutions
Symmetric institutions/weapons have the property that the effectiveness does not depend on who is using it (although there are things like offense vs defense issues).
- violence
- shouting match
- spreading viral content
- persuasion tactics
- info warfare
Concerns
Even asymmetric institutions aren't that good. Some thoughts here:
- lots of low hanging fruit remain unpicked / inability to resolve coordination failures (e.g. look at all of the criticisms of science in recent years)
- even asymmetric institutions can be corrupted
- halo effect to areas where these institutions don't have expertise
External links
- Comment by Carl Shulman on "Improving the future by influencing actors' benevolence, intelligence, and power"
- https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/
