On social norms as cheat detectors and classifiers:
This perfectly encapsulates my own view on how Mosaic law works. Everything on it is stuff that is prima facie evidence of not being with the group at large and not prioritizing collective needs over personal desires. This even includes prohibition against mixed fabrics in ordinary dress, and harsh penalties for acts like man-lying-with-man-as-with-woman (sodomy, but potentially broader).
There is a memetic and Bayesian component to all information that must be factored in, which is that if you (come to) know about something, this adjusts your models of other ideas. Does someone seem like part of the tribe, truly inwardly of the people of God, if you walk in on them committing adultery? The Mosaic law says no. Even when only a single crime is witnessed, we can make inferences about the other behaviors that someone would do. The man who would sleep with a married woman is modeled as also being willing to sleep with the single ladies, steal, and maybe even defect, up to and including worshipping a false god or selling out his people. Is this assumption unreasonable? I say no!
It is the same with poker, of course; if someone would call against a preflop 4bet shove in BU vs. BB with 77, presumably they will also call with 88 and better, but also are more likely to call with 66 even if we never saw him with 66 in that situation. This would all factor into the most profitable strategy against this player.
Great to still see you around, man. I miss you on Twitter!
Talking about the memetic part of laws more explicitly:
Every “perfect” system factors itself and its own execution in. The “ideal” punishment for a crime prices in the type of person who would still commit this crime despite the stated punishment. This process of picking the correct punishment changes how people think about certain offenses, and also affects how people react to these offenses and the offenders after punishment.
(Punishment has a necessary retributive function in societies where the state monopoly on violence replaces individual senses of retributive justice.)
Any punishment can be seen as the expected “price” for committing the offense; a parking fine set too low results in most people treating it as the bargain price for parking there. To state a punishment is to dictate the expected price to pay for being found out committing a particular act.
The frequency of a crime over one time interval also relates to the frequency of the same crime in future time intervals; this means that a slightly harsher punishment might result in a crime being committed much less often (due to network effects around norms), resulting in less overall punishment. (Think of it as the Laffer curve of morality.)
On social norms as cheat detectors and classifiers:
This perfectly encapsulates my own view on how Mosaic law works. Everything on it is stuff that is prima facie evidence of not being with the group at large and not prioritizing collective needs over personal desires. This even includes prohibition against mixed fabrics in ordinary dress, and harsh penalties for acts like man-lying-with-man-as-with-woman (sodomy, but potentially broader).
There is a memetic and Bayesian component to all information that must be factored in, which is that if you (come to) know about something, this adjusts your models of other ideas. Does someone seem like part of the tribe, truly inwardly of the people of God, if you walk in on them committing adultery? The Mosaic law says no. Even when only a single crime is witnessed, we can make inferences about the other behaviors that someone would do. The man who would sleep with a married woman is modeled as also being willing to sleep with the single ladies, steal, and maybe even defect, up to and including worshipping a false god or selling out his people. Is this assumption unreasonable? I say no!
It is the same with poker, of course; if someone would call against a preflop 4bet shove in BU vs. BB with 77, presumably they will also call with 88 and better, but also are more likely to call with 66 even if we never saw him with 66 in that situation. This would all factor into the most profitable strategy against this player.
Great to still see you around, man. I miss you on Twitter!
Talking about the memetic part of laws more explicitly:
Every “perfect” system factors itself and its own execution in. The “ideal” punishment for a crime prices in the type of person who would still commit this crime despite the stated punishment. This process of picking the correct punishment changes how people think about certain offenses, and also affects how people react to these offenses and the offenders after punishment.
(Punishment has a necessary retributive function in societies where the state monopoly on violence replaces individual senses of retributive justice.)
Any punishment can be seen as the expected “price” for committing the offense; a parking fine set too low results in most people treating it as the bargain price for parking there. To state a punishment is to dictate the expected price to pay for being found out committing a particular act.
The frequency of a crime over one time interval also relates to the frequency of the same crime in future time intervals; this means that a slightly harsher punishment might result in a crime being committed much less often (due to network effects around norms), resulting in less overall punishment. (Think of it as the Laffer curve of morality.)
Also, see my old thoughts on two-tier citizenship, on different legal codes for known major offenders versus never-convicted citizens. (https://x.com/sunriseoath/status/1834785476365963312)