The concept of Proof of Brain on Hive is that content is rewarded based on individuals being able to make smart decisions and together, create a wisdom of the crowd effect. By doing this, the best content gets rewarded. However, "content" itself isn't very well defined on Hive, as most people think it is a post, the topic, the formatting, the pictures etc. But these are only part of the content model, with other factors like persona, attitude, mannerisms, social skill and experience making up the rest and if my own experience is anything to go by, it is a significant portion of the content mass.
Do you know when a group of people are asked to for example, state whether they are an above average or below average driver, the majority say they are above average. In reality, this obviously can't be the truth, but it can be the subjective truth of the person making the statement. For them, they actually have very little information available as to the driving skills of others, but still feel confident enough to make a judgement call of themselves in relation to others.
This is a failure of the wisdom of the crowd strategy and the idea of Proof of Brain, but it does show something. For example, it shows that individuals will often judge based on their own self-interest, which in the case of the car, they are interested in feeling better than others, even if they have no information to back up their position.
Often, because we are working from a perspective of what we desire, we are knowingly or sub-consciously omitting valid information from our evaluation that conflicts with what we want to believe. This omission takes away pertinent information, making our evaluations and subsequent decision-making less valid and far less trustworthy. This is why average self-reported penis sizes are above the medical examiner measured figures.
People lie.
We lie to others for myriad reasons, but we also lie to ourselves for myriad reasons also. Or at least, we tell half-truths - like only buying that adults magazine for the articles. Sure, the articles could be part of the reason, but it is definitely not the only reason.
Understanding this and considering how we think and behave ourselves, should lead to the discovery that no matter how much confidence we have in our opinion, our opinion is going to be influenced by our preferences, whether we know it or not.
This means that objectivity is impossible, as even if we adjust for al of our known biases, there are going to be unknown biases in play too, and these go all the way down to our genetic level. Pretending these don't exist is folly, so too is treating preferences as something wrong, something that we shouldn't have, which we have seen in recent years regarding things like the conversation around "implicit bias" factors. Yes, these things should be considered in many regards, but they should also be treated with a great deal of space for nuance.
Nuance is dead.
And I think this is what should be thought about when considering our own evaluations, where even though we are confident, we are likely suffering from SoB - Scarcity of Brain, where we are actively not using all the information available to us and possibly knowingly so to some degree, which is kind of diminishing the value of our brain.
Proof of No-Brain.
In regards to Hive, a lot of people who complain that Proof of Brain doesn't work, are omitting information themselves, as they are making the large assumption that they have enough information in their experience to make that judgement. They also limit the factors involved in making judgements on content, often omitting the human factors of the personality and relationships involved, as well as the preferences of everyone involved.
This kind of demonstrates that at least in part, Scarcity of Brain is overriding the inconvenient bits of information to challenge Proof of Brain, creating a relationship between them, like two sides of a coin. And I think this is why Proof of Brain is useful, because each of us also suffers from various levels of Scarcity of Brain, even if we deny it in order to make ourselves feel better.
Inevitably, Half the content on Hive is worse than the other half, but this doesn't mean that the above average is in any way good. I suspect that there is probably quite a long tail on Hive content and while everyone is going to have good and bad days in regard to their own abilities to produce, there can be a large variation between individuals. But, I think if it was possible to factor in all of the components that are important to people, whether it be content, person or preference attributes, Proof of Brain probably does do a pretty good job of uncovering over time and rewarding decent content that the community as a whole values.
For me at the moment, while I am suffering from Scarcity of Brain myself, I count myself lucky that my own brain hasn't left me drooling in a wheelchair, unable to speak.
That doesn't prove much though.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
<
