There is this ideology that disagreeableness is the forcing function that underpins all human innovation. But this is just not the case. The cause of consensus divergence is the manipulation of language for the betterment of self at scale. We evolved language before it became a post Dunbar problem. Disagreeableness is senseless disagreement for the sake of disagreement to self validate. It is a power acquisition strategy. You claim individual intelligence when it does not exist and use that to justify polar acquisition of resources.

The stoic: My problems are mine, you can’t have them. Me: These are our problems, you can’t claim them

Social networks are reinforcement bias networks. They are populated by agents seeking confirmation, rewarding those with attention who are willing to omit truth. This all stems from an individuality bias. We ascribe value to individual minds out of vanity but there is no mind without 1:1 sex ratio and male and female differences that remain stable overtime to select for the birth of minds. People are not first principles thinkers. They are just self aggrandizing, ungrateful cogs in a cycle of civilizational booms and busts.

What is your first principle? If you are a “from first principal thinker”, then you have a first principal. What makes you think it is ‘the first principle’ and not just the level at which you understand everything?

@jack X and threads are going to ideologically polarize the intellectual web. There is no coming back from this.

The problem with bitcoin is the adoption profit motive. Anything with an adoption profit motive is a pyramid scheme. Any currency that starts this way presupposes that early adoption/intelligence should be rewarded monetarily over late adoption/ignorance. This runs directly contradictory to the function of a minimum wage which values all individuals equally.

This network is the best we’ve got but that is not a rave review. There are two different definitions of decentralization. Two different problems people are trying to solve. Some people are trying to secure private interaction and exchange and the others are trying to constrain social manipulation and network polarization. Privacy is an attempt to secure freedom to do the right thing by people who do the right thing - that is just an echo chamber. You are not going to get privacy because power on both sides won’t let you have it. It’s the only thing they agree on. You need to reverse the power polarity to actually decentralize a network. You need to shrink the power of the fringe on both side of the influencer spectrum, and this is exactly how you would scale a competitor to twitter. You need to polarize the micro blogging space like Roger Ailes did with traditional news media. He did it in a centralized way, but on the Internet, you have to do it in a decentralized way, using network effects, and that means an algorithm that rewards a new class of influencers.

The problem with microblogging today is that we are in a period of public square fractionation. We are building echo chambers across the internet instead of having real discussions about structure. Everyone that isn’t a right of center nationalist has left Twitter to join confirmation bias networks. These network operators are only interested in daily active users so they pander to ignorance.

We need a new class of influencers to balance out all of the shity ones we have now #introductions