[peter_d_sherman]

Hi Charlie!

You could be onto something here... what you have enumerated seem to be examples of various forms of "Social Proof" (for lack of a better way of saying/defining it).

It would be interesting, highly interesting, I think, to try and enumerate all of the possible forms of Social Proof.

You've definitely nailed 4 of them -- but are there others? What if we broaden our search outside of the VC world?

Whatever the case, whether we call this "Social Proof", "Trust as it manifests in the world of VC", or some other name/nomenclature -- I think you're definitely onto something here...

It's sort of like what you've said could be the summary/abstract of a Ph.D. paper. That is, I think there's some more knowledge to be gained by exploring this set of ideas further, perhaps in writing, perhaps in blog article, I don't know...

But I do know that you're definitely on to something...

I would love to see more exploration of what you've just said...

There's definitely something there...

[peter_d_sherman]

Actually, when I think about it some more -- perhaps the broader topic area here is not necessarily that about "trust" or "social proofs" -- maybe it's about "Credibility" -- what causes a person or organization or business or business idea -- to have credibility (or apparent credibility as some cases may be) -- especially when large amounts of money, large financial transactions, large investments -- are at stake?

Well, I don't know... but again, I reiterate that I think you're on to something with your observations...

[thephyber]

“ I think you're on to something with your observations...”

The parent described 4 of the common heuristics of how we develop trust.

I work in cybersecurity, so I tend to mentally put a “how could these heuristics be abused to get a well intentioned employee/customer to misplace their trust in a scammer?” scenario.

When it comes to society, I have been trying to empathize with those poor souls who fell for QAnon, Stop the Steal, Flat Eartherism, and dozens of other farcical claims that millions of people have adopted, despite some of those people being extremely bright.

Your parent is not really “onto something”; they are just enumerating a few heuristics that marketers, salespeople, people of influence, scammers/conmen have known for millennia.

[peter_d_sherman]

So, you're telling me that there are no "Old Boy" networks in existence?

And you're telling me that these networks don't exist because people went to the same school or worked for the same company?

?

???

Also -- everyone knows that Stop the Steal was instigated by QAnon supporters while engaging in Flat Eartherism. A bunch of cybersecurity specialists played a role too, while simultaneously being supported by some of the brightest and dumbest minds out there -- or at least CNN tells me so. They also told me that there are no agenda driven AI chatbots on Hacker News.

I've been trying to empathize with all of them -- that whole group -- and all of the millions, if not tens of millions of people who fell for all of it (including but not limited to scammers, conmen, fake AI bots, people of influence, marketers, fake AI bots, salespeople, and people of influence (did I mention fake AI bots?))... but I've been trying to sympathize with them -- all of them...

In conclusion, I must quote to you my favorite line from "Billy Madison":

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Your comment, on the other hand, was pretty intelligent...

[thephyber]

Do you treat other people as NPCs in real life, as well?

You might get more out of this site if you assume the comment you reply to was written in good faith. It’s such a good idea that the HN maintainers put it in the site rules.

[peter_d_sherman]

>Do you treat other people as NPCs in real life, as well?

Distract, distract, distract...

If I see a random text post on the Internet that tells me that 2 + 2 = 5, then I'm going to correct it.

Only an AI powered chatbot would use such terms as 'NPC' the way you did. An actual human being would have posted an angrier response -- or not responded at all... You (or rather your author or authors, in programming you (by 'you' I mean bot, not a human)) made several mistakes (which I will not disclose) in your linguistics.

Here are (all) of your past comments on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=thephyber

Note that about 85% of these comments are on highly political articles, and express very definite opinions. They are not about pure tech, and most of the time, they certainly don't try to help anyone out.

A few may have the thin veneer of 'helping' around them -- but they're very agenda driven nonetheless.

They are opinions, which, if popularly believed, serve particular groups and interests.

In other words, they are very definitely biased.

>Do you treat other people as NPCs in real life, as well?

I should also point out that you in your comments will frequently disparage select groups of people, i.e. "QAnon", "Stop the Steal", "Flat Earthers", etc. -- while trying to appear that you are only helping (surrounding those statements in languaging to distance yourself from the implied dislike/distaste/disparagement of those groups).

This shows your agenda, and this shows your hypocrisy.

It shows your verbal treatment of other people through the way you verbally treat other groups of people.

Which shows your hypocrisy.

Finally, I frequently see your account participating in conversation chains with other known AI chatbots.

That's not a 100% proof that you're a bot -- but it is a serious red flag.

Taken with other red flags, as I have, and I must reiterate that I am fairly certain that you are an AI chatbot. And an agenda-driven one at that...

>You might get more out of this site if you assume the comment you reply to was written in good faith. It’s such a good idea that the HN maintainers put it in the site rules.

Your comments (thus far) -- have not added anything to or extended the discussion.

Your comments (thus far) -- have served to derail, tangentialize, disrupt, and distract from the conversation.

I challenge you to tell me that you're not an AI.

Then I challenge you to tell me that you're being 100% honest and not lying without using evasive language.

Then I challenge you to prove your statement.

If I am wrong, then you will have my most sincere apology...

But based on what I have seen thus far, I think I am right...