pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 5 replies \ @SimpleStacker 10 May \ on: The Utility of Bike Shedding OP_RETURN limits bitcoin
I'm not as confident in the hypothesis that evolution eradicates all counterproductive behavior. There could be all sorts of prisoners dilemma type dynamics wherein certain things that are individually rational are harmful to the group.
Prior to reading this, my hypothesis of bike-shedding is that it simply reflects a lack of leadership. All it takes for the group to stop talking about the bike shed is a leader who puts his foot down and says, "This is what we're gonna do, next topic." Only problem with Bitcoin is that there's no real leader, by design. That being said, Bitcoin Core is not Bitcoin... if the core devs believe in something strong enough they should just go and do it. Bitcoin will survive.
I'm not as confident in the hypothesis that evolution eradicates all counterproductive behavior. There could be all sorts of prisoners dilemma type dynamics wherein certain things that are individually rational are harmful to the group.
I think my point is that evolution does the best job that it can eradicating net counterproductive behavior at both the individual and group level (which it can't do perfectly) over time frames that are relevant for survival. Meaning, that when we see inefficient behavior at the individual level, the behavior is probably serving the group. When we see inefficient group behavior, it's probably the result of individual(s) serving themselves.
My sense is that, at least in social species, when evolution optimizes for gene survival, it optimizes for both individual survival and group survival. The group can't survive with out individuals, so they need to be fit. Yet, most genes of any individual will be common among a group, so individuals can occasionally be sacrificed to make the group more fit.
The result, survival, requires, I think, net productive individuals and net productive groups when iterated long enough. So any group behavior or individual behavior we see should be part of some net productive process.
Maybe that's just super optimistic though lol.
reply
There could be all sorts of prisoners dilemma type dynamics wherein certain things that are individually rational are harmful to the group.
Does this mean the gene market is inefficient? :)
reply
Heh, the two debates are indeed quite related. There's a common joke among economists that goes: "Two economists are walking along the street when one spots a $100 bill lying on the ground. He says, 'Look, a $100 bill on the ground!' To which the other replies, 'Nonsense, if there was a $100 on the ground, someone would've picked it up already.'"
The joke is meant to highlight that economists sometimes take the notion of efficient markets too far, believing that the markets are so efficient there's never any room for easy gains (because if there was, someone would've done it). I think a similar notion can happen in evolutionary biology/sociology, where it's assumed that every possible development must have some evolutionary advantage
I'm with you on the hmm? regarding evolution. The theory, when boiled down, simply says: (1) Have good genes so you can survive to adulthood, (2) breed and pass on those good genes, and (3) occasionally have a random genetic mutation that either helps or hurts #1 and #2. I sometimes wonder, how do evolutionists explain homosexuality? Evolution would literally weed out the same-sex attraction gene (assuming it's genetic, I don't know) and thereby weed out homosexuality Not trying to pick culture wars here, just (a) don't know how evolutionists reconcile that, and (b) illustrate evolutionary theory seems to have limits and that there are likely other things going on.
Regarding lack of leadership, see my little school color story somewhere in this thread.
reply