Mark Waser wrote:
> The trouble with "not stepping on other's goals unless absolutely
> necessary" is that it relies on mind-reading. The goals of others are
> often opaque and not easily verbalizable even if they think to.
The trouble with */ the optimal implementation of /* "not stepping on
other's goals unless absolutely necessary" is that it relies on
mind-reading.
Your honest, best attempt at not doing so is all that is required
of/in Friendliness. The rest is an intelligence problem.
> Then
> there's the question of "unless absolutely necessary".
Again, your honest, best attempt is all that is required of/in
Friendliness.
> How and why
> should I decide that their goals are more important than mine?
You should *never* decide that (this is, after all, the ultimate in
self-interest -- remember?). You should frequently decide that their
goals are sufficiently compatible enough with your super-goals (i.e.
Friendliness) that it is worth going a bit out of your way to avoid
conflict (particularly if they feel strongly enough about their goals
that any effort that you make in conflict will be wasted -- see the
next paragraph).
> So one
> needs to know not only how important their goals are to them, but also
> how important my conflicting goals are to me.
Sort of but the true situation would be clearer if I restate it.
Knowing how important their immediate goals are to them will give you
some idea as to how hard they will strive to fulfill them. Knowing
how important your immediate goals are to you will give you some idea
how hard you should strive to fulfill them. If you both could
redirect an equal amount of directly competing striving into other
efforts, you both would come out ahead by that amount so you both
should reduce the importance of the conflicting goals by that amount
(the alternative is to just waste the effort striving against each
other). If the party with the less important goal gives up without a
fight (striving), both parties gain. Further, if the losing party
gets the agreement of the winning party for a reasonable favor in
return -- they both end up way ahead.
The only requirement that Friendliness insists upon for this to work
is that you have to be as honest as you can about how important
something is to you (otherwise a lot of effort is wasting upon truth
verification, hiding information, etc.).
> And, of course, whether
> there's a means for mutual satisfaction that it's too expensive. (And
> just try to define that "too".)
I think that I just handled this in the paragraph above -- keeping in
mind that all that Friendliness requires is your honest, best attempt.
> For some reason I'm reminded of the story about the peasant, his son,
> and the donkey carrying a load of sponges. I'd just as soon nobody
ends
> up in the creek. ("Please all, please none.")
Friendliness is supposed to appeal to geniuses as beng in their
self-interest. It can't do that and be stupid at the same time. If
it's not possible to please everyone then Friendliness isn't going to
attempt to do so. The entire point to Friendliness is to */REDUCE
UNNECESSARY CONFLICT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE/* because it is in
*everyone's* best interest to do so. Look at Friendliness as the
ultimate social lubricant that gets the gears of society moving as
efficiently as possible -- which is only to the benefit of everyone in
the society.
Mark
I *think* you are assuming that both sides are friendly. If one side is
a person, or group of people, then this is definitely not guaranteed.
I'll grant all your points if both sides are friendly, and each knows
the other to be friendly. Otherwise I think things get messier. So
objective measures and tests are desireable.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
