> This already assumes people are good and get along and are high trust.
It does assume most people are good, but that is something I believe deeply in my bones. (A simple logical argument is this: if people were on average harmful, we would all choose to be hermits. Since we don't, it implies that in aggregate our human interactions are a net benefit to us personally.)
It does assumes that people can choose whether or not to get along and that most people will choose to do that when placed in an interaction with strangers. I think that's a safe assumption for probably like 90% of groups of people.
It does not assume high trust. You only need to trust your dinner companions enough to not poison you or attack you, which is not a very high bar.
> It’s the same thing that did in the lonely hearts clubs. Swindlers came in to the rescue and take advantage of a lonely set of people.
I think the stakes a low enough to not make the situation much of a honeypot for bad actors. There's little to gain beyond a meal and my hypothetical "game" would require all participants to sometimes be the cooks.
The problem is that it only takes a small percent to ruin it for all. If one in 10 people is awful, and you have 10 meetings with an even random distribution, then everyone will have a story about how they got swindled.
We seriously need to kick that bad habit as a species. Not only is it a widely exploited bug but it is a death spiral - you need a new scapegoat or the unity collapses.
> It does assume most people are good, but that is something I believe deeply in my bones.
I do too (although I'd say "fundamentally decent" rather than "good", because "good" is a spectrum. Nobody is 100% bad or 100% good.)
I'm reminded of something I taught my children: most people are good, only a small percentage aren't. The trouble is that you can't tell which is which by looking -- so be both cautious and open with people.
It does assume most people are good, but that is something I believe deeply in my bones. (A simple logical argument is this: if people were on average harmful, we would all choose to be hermits. Since we don't, it implies that in aggregate our human interactions are a net benefit to us personally.)
It does assumes that people can choose whether or not to get along and that most people will choose to do that when placed in an interaction with strangers. I think that's a safe assumption for probably like 90% of groups of people.
It does not assume high trust. You only need to trust your dinner companions enough to not poison you or attack you, which is not a very high bar.
> It’s the same thing that did in the lonely hearts clubs. Swindlers came in to the rescue and take advantage of a lonely set of people.
I think the stakes a low enough to not make the situation much of a honeypot for bad actors. There's little to gain beyond a meal and my hypothetical "game" would require all participants to sometimes be the cooks.