63 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. Oct 2021
  3. Sep 2021
  4. Aug 2021
    1. Everett, J. A. C., Colombatto, C., Awad, E., Boggio, P., Bos, B., Brady, W. J., Chawla, M., Chituc, V., Chung, D., Drupp, M., Goel, S., Grosskopf, B., Hjorth, F., Ji, A., Kealoha, C., Kim, J. S., Lin, Y., Ma, Y., Maréchal, M. A., … Crockett, M. (2021). Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mzswb

  5. Jul 2021
  6. Jun 2021
    1. Woolf, K., McManus, I. C., Martin, C. A., Nellums, L. B., Guyatt, A. L., Melbourne, C., Bryant, L., Gogoi, M., Wobi, F., Al-Oraibi, A., Hassan, O., Gupta, A., John, C., Tobin, M. D., Carr, S., Simpson, S., Gregary, B., Aujayeb, A., Zingwe, S., … Pareek, M. (2021). Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in United Kingdom healthcare workers: Results from the UK-REACH prospective nationwide cohort study [Preprint]. Public and Global Health. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.26.21255788

  7. May 2021
  8. Mar 2021
    1. Cailin O’Connor. (2020, November 10). New paper!!! @psmaldino look at what causes the persistence of poor methods in science, even when better methods are available. And we argue that interdisciplinary contact can lead better methods to spread. 1 https://t.co/C5beJA5gMi [Tweet]. @cailinmeister. https://twitter.com/cailinmeister/status/1326221893372833793

  9. Feb 2021
    1. Brian Nosek. (2020, December 5). We need a #2020goodnews trend. Here’s one: Science keeps getting more open. One indicator from @OSFramework: OSF users posted 9,349 files of data or other research content PER DAY OSF users made 5,633 files public PER DAY EVERY DAY in 2020 #openscience is accelerating [Tweet]. @BrianNosek. https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/1335210552252125184

  10. Jan 2021
  11. Oct 2020
  12. Sep 2020
  13. Aug 2020
  14. Jul 2020
  15. Jun 2020
  16. May 2020
  17. Apr 2020
  18. Jun 2016
  19. Jan 2016
    1. This has implications far beyond the cryptocurrency

      The concept of trust, in the sociological and economic sense, underlies exchange. In the 15th-17th centuries, the Dutch and English dominance of trade owed much to their early development of instruments of credit that allowed merchants to fund and later to insure commercial shipping without the exchange of hard currency, either silver or by physically transporting the currency of the realm. Credit worked because the English and Dutch economies trusted the issuers of credit.

      Francis Fukuyama, a philosopher and political economist at Stanford, wrote a book in 1995, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, on the impact of cultures of trust on entrepreneurial growth. Countries of ‘low trust’ have close family culture who limit trust to relations: France, China, S. Italy. Countries of ‘high trust’ have greater ‘spontaneous sociability’ that encourages the formation of intermediate institutions between the state and the family, that encourage greater entrepreneurial growth: Germany, England, the U.S. – I own the book and (shame on me!) haven’t yet read it.

      I thought of this article in those contexts – of the general need for trusted institutions and the power they have in mediating an economy, and the fascinating questions raised when a new facilitator of trust is introduced.

      How do we trust? Across human history, how have we extended the social role of trust to institutions? If a new modality of trust comes available, how does that change institutional structures and correspondingly the power of individuals, of institutions. How would it change the friction to growth and to decline?

      Prior to reading this article, I had dismissed Bitcoin as a temporary aberration, mostly for criminal enterprises and malcontents. I still feel that way. But the underlying technology and it’s implications – now that’s interesting.