What a beautiful article! I remember debating Nassim before his book was published, and he was a bit pigheaded already back then. I wouldn't wholly blame him, however - publish or perish is the zeitgeist. If one keeps publishing new new new - everyone will either run dry, or get stupid.

In contrast, look at how Darwin kept perfecting his one book through decades: https://benfry.com/traces/

The bit about cultivating one or a few really good audience members that sharpen us feels like an important insight. This makes the case for social media systems that are extremely niche, extremely aristocratic. But its almost the opposite of social media. This implies its actually good to avoid all contact with the borg. Good novel thought comes from the incentives of going deep, not broad. The whole social media and broader economic paradigm we’ve been in for a long time is about making new connections to take advantage of and arbitrage out information asymmetries. But those valuable asymmetries are actually needed but cant form in that paradigm. Great thoughts Ivan. Go deeper!

So here’s my questsion: what does this mean for sofiechan, given we are a 4chan derivative aiming to maximize quality of thought? Is that a doomed contradiction, or a productive tension we can resolve or synthesize for fun and profit? And assuming the latter, what features should we be building and not building?

>>2358

the beauty of 4chan is it lacks karma and is ephemeral. this incentivizes provocation over depth (bad), but also provocation over platitude (great). sofiechan being anonymous helps with this too.

apologies for the Jungian frame, which I know our host disprefers, but this makes sofiechan seems perfectly positioned for the task of shadow integration - to discuss the things in our community that are hard to discuss in more legible fora. 4chan is pure shadow-dumping - no integration - but the aristocratic-yet-anonymous karma system seems perfect for metabolizing ugly truths and turning them into fertile soil

>>2362
I wonder how we could make sofiechan better for deep engagement. Ive already noticed the algorithm punishing people for getting into obscure one-on-one but actually valuable discourses. I dont like that and will probably be changing it.

What do you think of this: on sofiechan, downvotes are for rule violations and unhelpful noiseposting, upvotes are for persistence and visibility. Authority will come from ability to be a good predictor of retrospective truth (in factual matters) and esteem (in value judgements) in the usual monarcho-aristocratic sofiechan way. It will also come somewhat from who we actually respect (this part yet to be created and rolled out). My hope is to curate the content here especially from our favorite posters and remove trash without creating all the usual bad social media or moderation incentives. But i think we need a better theory of exactly what the incentives should be.

As for Jung, i have nothing against Jung as a psychologist and his ideas are certainly not offtopic here. Its when you use Jungian archetypal reasoning to justify pseudo-belief in religion as jordon peterson etc do that im going to call you out for being deliberately irrational in a retarded and useless way. Believe only the truth and accept no substitute.