Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Game theory’s cure for corruption

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#41

Post by atom-morgan »

mod wrote: post #39
ashark wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even as another driver I automatically class any police car I see as "highest possible risk of doing something stupid without warning", right up there with a minivan full of kids and a texting driver that I've observed swerving several times and has changed lanes without signaling. The only problem with this is that the cop car probably deserves a class of its own, even riskier than the swerving distracted-driver min…

Maybe it's a function of me living in a small town, but I have only once seen police doing anything dangerous while driving. I've NEVER seen one use his siren to get through a red-light, either. When they have the siren on, they're typically driving much faster than normal, but normally they're indistinguishable from a normal driver. The one incident I did see was a motorcycle officer do a U-turn across four lanes to…

> Maybe it's a function of me living in a small town, but I only once seen police doing anything dangerous while driving.

I guess so. I've seen it more times than I can count.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#42

Post by mkagenius »

tl;dr

The main strategy:

Here’s how it might look in practice. Imagine a city where police commit blatant traffic violations and never ticket one another. The authorities could decrease power inequalities by developing an online system in which all citizens are able to anonymously report dangerous drivers. Anyone who received too many independent reports would be investigated – police included. This sounds almost laughably simple, and yet the model indicates that it ought to do the trick. It is, after all, essentially the same system used by many online communities.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#43

Post by mod »

digi_owl wrote: post #22

Maybe I'm cynical, but I can't shake the thought that this will simply lead to the formation of gangs/clans.

I think social media is a somewhat relevant corollary, where it self-polices content.

I'd say sometimes--like HN--it's a success. Good behavior is encouraged & enforced. Bad behavior is punished.

Other times--like reddit--not a success. The hive-mind is real there, and in particular well-mannered disagreement that is misaligned with the norm is punished pretty strongly there.

Plus we all have heard how their investigations of real-life events have turned out--witch hunts.

I think reddit's population is more reflective of the general population, unfortunately. I don't think self-policing would end well at all.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#44

Post by kefka »

mkagenius wrote: post #42

tl;dr The main strategy: Here’s how it might look in practice. Imagine a city where police commit blatant traffic violations and never ticket one another. The authorities could decrease power inequalities by developing an online system in which all citizens are able to anonymously report dangerous drivers. Anyone who received too many independent reports would be investigated – police included. This sounds almost lau…

I'm not entirely sure I like that. Ever hear of brigading on Reddit, or "your personal army" on 4chan /b/ ?

That's the bad end of what we have to deal with. And it is easy to imagine every officer getting more votes than the city has residents... and we're back to square 1.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#45

Post by patcon »

albertsun wrote: post #23

If your mental model for something is so malleable that it can explain cancer and police corruption the same way, maybe it's not actually providing any insight and all you've done is distort reality to fit it. Just saying... Game theory is so easy to invoke

Or maybe it suggests underlying order?

https://www.ted.com/talks/alex_wissner_gross_a_new_equation_...

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#46

Post by DennisP »

Maultasche wrote: post #27

Have everyone empowered to dispense justice is an interesting proposition, but there's a big difference between insects and people. People aren't all logical, analytic creatures, especially when they operate in groups. They tend to act on emotion rather than logic and it often isn't clear which information is factual and which is rumor. People tend to be susceptible to groupthink, and often go with the crowd. Having…

You wouldn't want to legalize lynch mobs. But maybe there's a happy medium. Making it clear that citizens are allowed to take videos of cops might be a good start.

For actual punishment, force isn't necessarily needed. A lot of societies manage it by social pressure, with "shunning" being an extreme version. Pressure for conformity already exists regarding things which are not illegal, so I'm not convinced that it makes things worse to rely on it more for things which are currently illegal.

One of my anthropology professors used to say there are two ways to keep order in society: by force, and by ideology, and the second is a lot cheaper.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#47

Post by coldtea »

kps wrote: post #18

> In righteous societies, police were not a separate, elite order. > They were everybody. Attributed to John Peel in his establishment of London Metropolitan Police: “To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police , the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention…

>In righteous societies, police were not a separate, elite order. They were everybody.

Also in totalitarian dystopias.

The thing is, before you get to who the police is (and it being everybody can be OK), it's more important to know what to police for and what is considered an offense.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#48

Post by sliverstorm »

DennisP wrote: post #46
Maultasche wrote: post #27

Have everyone empowered to dispense justice is an interesting proposition, but there's a big difference between insects and people. People aren't all logical, analytic creatures, especially when they operate in groups. They tend to act on emotion rather than logic and it often isn't clear which information is factual and which is rumor. People tend to be susceptible to groupthink, and often go with the crowd. Having…

You wouldn't want to legalize lynch mobs. But maybe there's a happy medium. Making it clear that citizens are allowed to take videos of cops might be a good start. For actual punishment, force isn't necessarily needed. A lot of societies manage it by social pressure, with "shunning" being an extreme version. Pressure for conformity already exists regarding things which are not illegal, so I'm not convinced that it ma…

It's rare but you can perform a citizen's arrest

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#49

Post by aidenn0 »

mod wrote: post #39
ashark wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even as another driver I automatically class any police car I see as "highest possible risk of doing something stupid without warning", right up there with a minivan full of kids and a texting driver that I've observed swerving several times and has changed lanes without signaling. The only problem with this is that the cop car probably deserves a class of its own, even riskier than the swerving distracted-driver min…

Maybe it's a function of me living in a small town, but I have only once seen police doing anything dangerous while driving. I've NEVER seen one use his siren to get through a red-light, either. When they have the siren on, they're typically driving much faster than normal, but normally they're indistinguishable from a normal driver. The one incident I did see was a motorcycle officer do a U-turn across four lanes to…

Small town makes a big difference. What are the odds that a friend of a friend (or even a cousin) sees the cop do something stupid, compared to a large town?

[edit] To put this in the context of the article, if a Cop does something publicly stupid in a small town, there will be a social penalty levied against them when they e.g. sit down for a beer next to someone who saw them do something stupid.

Re: Game theory’s cure for corruption

#50

Post by spcoll »

coldtea wrote: post #47
kps wrote: post #18

> In righteous societies, police were not a separate, elite order. > They were everybody. Attributed to John Peel in his establishment of London Metropolitan Police: “To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police , the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention…

> In righteous societies, police were not a separate, elite order. They were everybody . Also in totalitarian dystopias. The thing is, before you get to who the police is (and it being everybody can be OK), it's more important to know what to police for and what is considered an offense.

Hunter-gatherer societies that did fit this model could be considered to be the ultimate totalitarian organizations. Extremely strict rules controlling every aspect of the life of the members, from birth to death, and no deviation ever tolerated, under pain of banishment or even death.
Post reply on HN