From: Peter Thiel a> To: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Subject: Re: FW: Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:44:46 +0000 Jeff -- much longer discussion, but not sure I even made my questions clear: (1). I don't question that there is a line of evolutionary thinking under which deception is highly adaptive (and in this sense, it is quite compatible with the findings of science). I meant it more as a question of the sociology of science: If there is a lot of deception in science, then there are a lot of fake scientists trying to get government grant money and thereby replace the real scientists. I think this is a pretty big phenomenon and seriously underestimated. (2). The related question of whether the amount of deception goes up or down over time is not about evolutionary biology (since I assume our evolutionary nature doesn't change that quickly), but more about politics and technology. Thus, if there are better ways of detecting deception, then there may be less taking place (the cost/benefit calculus just shifts). And perhaps conversely, if there is a stronger government, then perhaps it will be able to get away with more deception (think fascist/communist propaganda, or Orwell's 1984) and will find it easier to pretend that it is solving problems than actually to solve problems. --Peter From: Peter Thiel mailto:l >> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:31 AM Subject: FW: To: mailto: ' mailto: ) mailto: > From: jeffrey E. [mailto:jeevacation®gmail.com] Sent: Monday, A ril 11, 2016 3:39 AM To: Peter Thiel mailto:a> Subject: briefly, trivers and I share the same belief in the major role of deception. - a tool to protect or conquer free energy.. in essence if the predator can read your algorithm, you are easy food . so deception is the first line of defense as it usually the cheapest. if a prey knows its own algorithm it is open to interrogation. so nature hides it from the" self'. Deceptive self confidence is also a winning game strategy.