[staticshock]

Instead, the approach that will continue increasing in dominance is hiring referrals and finding jobs through personal networks.

In a world that increasingly resembles The Library of Babel,

- the main way to know what's true is to tune into news sources you trust (monolithic old school media, or personality driven new-school media, social media, etc.),

- the main way to learn what to watch/listen/read is to take recommendations from people you trust, or received through channels you trust,

- the main way to hire or get hired is, increasingly, by exploiting a network of people you trust.

All of this compensates for ambient oversaturation by using the best available (and tunable!) desaturation filter: your trust network.

[the_snooze]

Social affinity and reputation represent winning strategies that have served humans very well since the dawn of time. It shouldn't be surprising that they continue to be extremely effective even (or perhaps especially) in the age of AI.

[TeMPOraL]

That's why "nepotism" still thrives, in spite of (at least here in the West) several generations being taught that it's bad, evil and unfair.

[lazide]

That isn’t why nepotism exists.

Nepotism is because ‘what is the point of doing all this’ - aka passing things on to family.

It also enables a degree of aligned interests between what could otherwise be hard to align parties (trust, like you mention), but that not why someone gets a big name acting slot, or gets put on the board of a friends company.

[TeMPOraL]

It's part of it.

Nepotism entangles organizational interests with personal interests, in both good and bad ways. It means that someone may hire a friend or family member because they know they're a) competent enough for the job, and b) they actually, personally know them, which significantly reduces a risk of the hire turning out bad, relative to a stranger with equal or better credentials. But it also means that someone may hire a friend or family member because they're trading favors, which is bad for the organization[0].

I suppose in practice the latter might be more common - I'd guess it could be the whole idea has structural dynamics similar to "the market for lemons". I haven't spent much time thinking about it and researching the problem in depth, so I can't say.

--

[0] - And may or may not be bad for the local community. I suppose the larger problem for organizations is simply that they're designed to be focused, and need to maintain alignment of incentives across the org chart. Nepotism is a threat because it attaches new edges to the org chart - edges that lead to much more complex and fuzzy graphs of family and community relationships, breaking the narrow focus that makes organizations work.

[joe_mamba]

>that have served humans very well since the dawn of time.

Except none of this scales in the modern world beyond flat small orgs in homogenous high trust cultures, basically modern tribes.

If you're a large org with diverse people from everywhere and you empower everyone down the ladder to hire the people they trust, they'll just end up gaming the system or hiring their friends and family and the org fails from nepotism, corruption and cronyism.

It's not like we don't have enough examples of this happening everywhere in the world, and why most places have official hiring policies against this behavior, or policies to obfuscate connections from the hiring pipeline to make sure people get in exclusively on merit.

It's also why socialism is only financially viable in small homogeneous communities (like the Amish for example) where everyone adheres to the social contract of contributing to society more than they take out, and is kept accountable by the ingroup to be honest, but fails at a nation level where everyone including the government in charge of managing it tries to defraud it or game the system in their favor taking out more than they contribute, leading to constant budget deficit and ultimately collapse (see EU state pension systems)

But yes, fully eliminating nepotism and cronyism via rules and laws is nearly impossible due to human own-group bias, so networking will always be a huge asset.

Although I might know a solution, hear me out. I have fond memories of being part of this amazing private torrent tracker back in the day, that was 100% invite only, and the way the community was kept honest and accountable to the spirit and the rules, was that every person was responsible for the people they invite, so if their invites would commit a bannable offense, their parent who invited them would also got banned, meaning people would be very selective with their invites, biasing more towards meritocracy rather than nepotism or selling their invites online for cash which was common back then. Feels like something that could scale IRL as well. You hire your friend that turns out to be a shit employee, you're out the door along with him.

[pixl97]

>monolithic old school media,

Unfortunately these have been bought up by billionaires that use them as play things to get richer.

>from people you trust,

In one particular area where they understand what is going on. I have lawyers I would trust with my life on legal matters, but should not be trusted around any digital device.

>y exploiting a network of people you trust.

agreed, but sucks for people that don't have that.

[staticshock]

"wildly misplaced trust" is a subcategory of "trust", which is exactly how i meant it