RE: Signalling Theory, Radical Transparency, and the death of genuine communication
It's not a matter of courage, more a matter of cost vs benefit. If you're rational yet brave you take calculated risks. This means you've got to have a lot more to gain than to lose. I suppose in my assumptions about Alice and Bob I was going by the fact that they would be at least attempting to be rational agents.
What would Alice or Bob have to gain? If they are trying to be liked, then they only would become increasingly disliked over time if they do not care about reputation. If they do not care about credibility such as if they don't do the signalling (education for example) then their audience might not take them as seriously.
How would Alice and Bob maintain:
- Good reputations
- Their audience
Do not seek to protect yourself could be going forward off the cliff. Is that what you recommend?
But, your cost/benefit criterial framework is only as good as you have it now. It is subject of change as anything else. If you constrict yourself to a certain axiomatics, i.e. not brave enough to transcend / transcale ( https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-transcaling ) your models ... you kinda doom yourself. Cuz the only imaginable mode of survival is to constantly lower the probability of yourself to perish. Capish?
Why wouldn't anyone update their framework if it doesn't work? But cost benefit analysis does work.
Belief is deadly. It is very strong toxin. Cost/benefit is NOT one thing. It is a vast array of tools. Try to define what exactly you refer to and you'll see the infinite regress.
Who brought up belief?
the 'theories'