2 ms·

critical thinking and Machiavellianism are orthogonal. if you read the comments i am responding to, you'd see that those comments are the ones which are making

by dingbat 10y ago

critical thinking and Machiavellianism are orthogonal. if you read the comments i am responding to, you'd see that those comments are the ones which are making the assumption that critical thinkers are non-Machiavellian, which is just as inane as the idea that critical thinking should be Machiavellian in nature. perhaps the problem is that for most people it is more emotionally satisfying to believe themselves as non-Machiavellian critical thinkers, thus confusing the two as related somehow. consider two fundamental properties of critical thinking: asking the right questions, and objectivity. in a large organization that was defined (not by me) as having politics and power-playing as the main priority, then the person who thinks they are "getting things done" as long as those "things" do not involve icky political managerial dynamics ("selling my soul"), never thinking to question their own personal biases of "just because i like to put my head down and work on shipping product, is that the right thing to get done?", would seem to in fact not be engaging in critical thinking at all. again, my reply is responding to (not supporting) the nonsensical proposition that critical thinkers (as ill-defined by other commentors) are more effective than Machiavellian actors, even as they are supposedly marginalized (aka rendered ineffective) within large organizations. i can understand why that line of thinking is confusing, because it is.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
No, it's not confusing, it's just wrong. You're confusing objectivity, which is understanding how a situation really works, with a moral imperative to take advantage of every situation. You're also implying that Machivellianism works better for individuals and corporations. There's absolutely no evidence to support that position, and plenty of evidence to refute it - not least the incredibly stupid and destructive decisions made by corporate "winners" for reasons of political advantage which regularly sink companies and damage their own employment prospects. If you were truly engaging in critical thinking you'd be able to understand this. In fact all you're doing is projecting the inverse of your own emotional biases onto people who not only have different motivations, but are modelling outcomes as a whole more effectively than you are. The key question is the size of your predictive horizon. Just because someone is effective at small-scale politics doesn't mean they understand likely outcomes from a broader perspective. In your system "critical thinkers" would be just as effective in absolutely any political system, including bureaucracy for its own sake, and North Korean dictatorship. Clearly both of those have fundamental inefficiencies and stupidities which severely limit their practical effectiveness. Playing the game may be expedient if you're trapped inside them, but the inefficiencies and stupidities can only ever be mitigated by individuals who understand what's wrong with them, not by those who conform to them for personal gain.
- dingbat 10y ago
  > You're also implying that Machivellianism works better for individuals and corporations. my position is exactly the opposite of stating that Machivellianism "works better". in fact the comments i have been responding to, and disagreeing with, were making that case, not me. (in any case, the opposite of "works better" does not mean "works worse") those comments assumed the following (il)logical connections: a) critical thinking = non-Machiavellian behavior, b) critical thinkers are supposedly the most effective in "getting things done", c) yet, critical thinkers are supposedly the most likely to be punished and rendered ineffective, d) Machiavellianism is rewarded (aka "works better") in big companies, e) because critical thinkers focus on priorities that are relatively unimportant in large companies, such as "shipping product" not only are some of these points individually suspect, but taken together they are inconsistent and make no sense at all.
- adekok 10y ago
  > There's absolutely no evidence to support that position, and plenty of evidence to refute it - not least the incredibly stupid and destructive decisions made by corporate "winners" for reasons of political advantage which regularly sink companies and damage their own employment prospects. In engineering terms, optimizing for local maxima doesn't mean you get the global maxima. i.e. managers playing political games over crap "win" in the short term. And sink companies in the long term. I know people who worked at DEC. They said it was a great company when it was focussed on products, and on engineering. Then at some point, "professional managers" took over. Management then became focussed on politics and infighting. And... DEC died. > If you were truly engaging in critical thinking you'd be able to understand this. In fact all you're doing is projecting the inverse of your own emotional biases onto people who not only have different motivations, but are modelling outcomes as a whole more effectively than you are. That sounds right to me. The immediate labeling of people as "frustrated losers" shows that his reaction is emotional, and not rational.

by dingbat 10y ago

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

No, it's not confusing, it's just wrong. You're confusing objectivity, which is understanding how a situation really works, with a moral imperative to take advantage of every situation. You're also implying that Machivellianism works better for individuals and corporations. There's absolutely no evidence to support that position, and plenty of evidence to refute it - not least the incredibly stupid and destructive decisions made by corporate "winners" for reasons of political advantage which regularly sink companies and damage their own employment prospects. If you were truly engaging in critical thinking you'd be able to understand this. In fact all you're doing is projecting the inverse of your own emotional biases onto people who not only have different motivations, but are modelling outcomes as a whole more effectively than you are. The key question is the size of your predictive horizon. Just because someone is effective at small-scale politics doesn't mean they understand likely outcomes from a broader perspective. In your system "critical thinkers" would be just as effective in absolutely any political system, including bureaucracy for its own sake, and North Korean dictatorship. Clearly both of those have fundamental inefficiencies and stupidities which severely limit their practical effectiveness. Playing the game may be expedient if you're trapped inside them, but the inefficiencies and stupidities can only ever be mitigated by individuals who understand what's wrong with them, not by those who conform to them for personal gain.

dingbat 10y ago
> You're also implying that Machivellianism works better for individuals and corporations. my position is exactly the opposite of stating that Machivellianism "works better". in fact the comments i have been responding to, and disagreeing with, were making that case, not me. (in any case, the opposite of "works better" does not mean "works worse") those comments assumed the following (il)logical connections: a) critical thinking = non-Machiavellian behavior, b) critical thinkers are supposedly the most effective in "getting things done", c) yet, critical thinkers are supposedly the most likely to be punished and rendered ineffective, d) Machiavellianism is rewarded (aka "works better") in big companies, e) because critical thinkers focus on priorities that are relatively unimportant in large companies, such as "shipping product" not only are some of these points individually suspect, but taken together they are inconsistent and make no sense at all.
adekok 10y ago
> There's absolutely no evidence to support that position, and plenty of evidence to refute it - not least the incredibly stupid and destructive decisions made by corporate "winners" for reasons of political advantage which regularly sink companies and damage their own employment prospects. In engineering terms, optimizing for local maxima doesn't mean you get the global maxima. i.e. managers playing political games over crap "win" in the short term. And sink companies in the long term. I know people who worked at DEC. They said it was a great company when it was focussed on products, and on engineering. Then at some point, "professional managers" took over. Management then became focussed on politics and infighting. And... DEC died. > If you were truly engaging in critical thinking you'd be able to understand this. In fact all you're doing is projecting the inverse of your own emotional biases onto people who not only have different motivations, but are modelling outcomes as a whole more effectively than you are. That sounds right to me. The immediate labeling of people as "frustrated losers" shows that his reaction is emotional, and not rational.