Weight opinions by believability — track records, not titles, decide whose view counts on a given question.
Note the “on a given question” qualifier — believability is domain-local, not a general score attached to a person. That’s the part most people drop when they borrow the idea.
Links
Typed edges. Anything below the line was authored on the other note and derived here.
supports →Surface disagreement instead of hiding it — being wrong quietly costs far more than being corrected loudly.Without believability weighting, transparency just makes the loudest person win. The weighting is what stops openness from degrading into noise.
← supported byKnow where the edge of your knowledge is — the boundary matters far more than the size of the circle.
Believability is domain-specific or it is nothing. The circle is the same claim stated from the inside: a track record transfers only within the boundary that produced it.
← requiresNever ask what someone thinks — ask what they are paid to think.Before weighting anyone by track record, check what they are compensated to conclude. A believable track record built under a distorting incentive is worse than no track record, because it carries authority.
← contradicted byGiven enough participants, spectacular track records appear by chance alone — success is evidence of skill only after you count the entrants.Dalio's idea meritocracy runs on weighting people by demonstrated record. If records are mostly noise in the domains that matter, believability-weighting is a confident method for amplifying luck. This is the load-bearing disagreement between the two systems.