Using Jim as a Schelling point for reality

What is this blog’s tagline? ‘Truth in a world of lies’. I like to hammer on the truth part. Truth is seldom found, because truth is unconditional cooperation — risky. It can not be refunded, taken back.

What I mean is that if I tell you the code of my banking account, I have extended my arm so far that the only thing I can hope for is that you won’t break it. Since the odds are against me I had thus better change my code asap.

This is why all this talk about ‘speak the TRUTH!’ and ‘be TRUTHful!’ is, generally speaking, such nonsense. Rarely, rarely do men speak unadulterated truth. Most often you get an interpreted version of truth, e.g. a position that from a certain vantage point might be framed as truthful but really is more of a hedging bet based on current emotional state. The Nash equilibrium is to say only that which raises your status. Even Jordan Peterson won’t address the Jewish Question.

It is self-defeating to blame men for their reluctance to speak truth. Cooperation is risky. When in doubt, better to lie. But here at this blog our diagnosis is that the democratic West will soon be dead because of lack of cooperation, so we try to kickstart new cooperation, starting by extending our hand by speaking truth.

Obviously, speaking truth by itself is not my main goal. My main goal is the creation of cooperation. If my main goal were to speak only and only truth, I’d just be setting myself up to be ‘exposed’ by leftists using my own rules against my. I reserve the right to lie. To do otherwise is stupid.

The reason I am telling you this is that this explains why I have been referencing Jim in every other post I write. Every content creator out there is out for his own gain and every content creator competes with other content creator for views, so the Nash equilibrium for bloggers is to defect on other bloggers. What I am doing in repeatedly upholding Jim as luminous beacon of intellectual honesty and curiosity and clear thought and sparkling prose and charity to dissenting views, shining out far across the darkness of online discourse, is because we need to cooperate. Well, we don’t need to cooperate, you’re free to do whatever you want, but it is right to cooperate. We are built for cooperation.

But it is hard to get cooperation right. Need some autism. So, in order to get it right, must emphasize Jim, must get the foundations right.

4 thoughts on “Using Jim as a Schelling point for reality

  1. You start with the question of how to increase cooperation, but do not address the quesition of “with whom?”. Sure you mention Jim, and I’m all for cooperation with Jim, but that’s not enough. Of course, I’ll cooperate with friends and allies, but in the present time of crises, pre-civil war really, the question of “defect on whom” is of equal importance.

    How do I detect potential allies to cooperate with? How enemies (to defect on)? Sometimes it is easy, if someone argues loudly for open borders, I know that is an enemy. If someone agrees that borders should be closed and wants to start a Reconquista, I’ll treat him as an ally (even so he might by lying). Problem is most people won’t state a clear opinion (are perhaps uncapable of having a clear opinion). Some might be motivated to join my view, on some all effort will be lost.

    1. I am not sure if I have a satisfactory answer to this question. I am also figuring it out as I go along.

      Cooperation generally is a group thing, so it is important to get a sense of group identities. You don’t have to agree on everything, in fact you may disagree on many things, but if the group identity feels good (e.g. males making loud male jokes), it usually is good.

      There are different levels of cooperation. Here, we are trying to get to the highest level of cooperation; that needed for a great civilization. In real life, often have to settle for minor forms of cooperation.

      Generally, cooperation is a non-verbal thing. So, even if people verbally agree with everything you say, they may still defect on you, although if people verbally disagree with you, they are likely to defect on you.

      In the end, proof of cooperation is only in the act of cooperating, so some amount of risk will always be involved.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.