some traits, skills, etc, allow one to collaborate & cothink better with others in general (&vv)

introduction to first principles of trust-building and communication

• Okay, so claim: some traits, skills, etc, allow one to collaborate & cothink better with others in general (&vv)
  • This is quite easy to prove by offering a simple extreme example: someone who kills people who disagree with them will be less able to think effectively with others than someone who listens to and tries to understand the points of view of others.
  • This is not just a matter of compatibility. Ceteris paribus, two people who both kill disagreers but who have other disagreements can't coordinate as well as two people who have the same other disagreements but more capacity to listen.

• Okay, so *given that* some traits, skills, etc, allow one to collaborate & cothink better with others in general (&vv)
  • how do we
    • find what all of these are (both theoretically and instantiatedly)
    • while also not taking on naive versions of such traits that allow better collaboration with other naive folks but creates security vulnerabilities against others?
      • This could be naivety in some immediate sense (eg assuming nobody will ever try to cheat you makes you vulnerable to con artists)
      • or it could be something that creates an feeling of satisfying cothinking but the quality of output of that cothinking is uncompetitive against existing agents (of similar individual intelligence).

• It seems to me pretty clear that there's a clear attractor basin of roughly dozens of some traits, skills, etc, allow one to collaborate & cothink better with others in general (&vv) that mutually reinforce each other.
  • In some sense this might be necessarily true, since if we assume the contrary, then we're assuming that there are some traits, skills, etc, allow one to collaborate & cothink better with others in general (&vv) but make it HARDER to collaborate with others who have some different set of those skills, which negates "in general" as long as we take "in general" to mean "essentially always" rather than just "on average".
  • "essentially always" is of course a huge bar that's not worth trying to clear, in that ofc any set of particular approaches will be more workable for some contexts than others and for any particular strategy there's a counterstrategy or perspective from which it is precisely unworkable. But we might say something like "essentially always allows you to collaborate better with others who are also trying to solve the puzzle of how to collaborate better with others (etc) even if they're coming from a completely different approach"