= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on Histocracy: Open, Effective Group Decision-Making With Weighted Voting - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (62)
Well, then I think you haven't put enough thought into how the system might be gamed (as it would be in practice). With your initial naive version, there would be an incentive to weigh in only on decisions that are slam-dunks and on decisions that you personally have a stake in, using the first to "buy" credibility that you "spend" on the other. Because of this, difficult decisions would be dominated by people with ulterior motives.
Now, of course there can be fixes for this, but it serves to illustrate that your system probably won't be perfect fresh out of the box. Again, I think it would be an improvement on a system that doesn't even track people's records, but I don't share your total zeal.
Also, people's decision making abilities change over time. What I did right or wrong 5 years ago is not as important as what I did right or wrong one week ago. So, the influence of past decision scores should diminish as time passes. Exponential decay of importance, maybe? Another way you could do it is use a rating number for each player analogue to those used e.g. in chess (ELO).