4 ms·

I think trendia's point is not that those people are correct, but that people are influenced by their surroundings; that it is the orgsmizstion we must change,

I think trendia's point is not that those people are correct, but that people are influenced by their surroundings; that it is the orgsmizstion we must change, not the people in it.

wordupmaking 9y ago
Though if you subtract the working people for it from an organization, what remains? Not that I disagree, in the same sense that it's too easy to solely blame soldiers for the wars civilians enable politicians to send them into. Of course the folks at the NSA didn't wake up one morning and just decided to be a bit too creepy on their own. But at the same time, no person is a completely passive receptacle for the social pressures of elusive active people, to a degree everybody is responsible for what they take part in. Otherwise, anything/anyone you could point to in criticism and for the purpose of changing any organization could in turn say "don't change me, change my environment", in an endless circle. But it's all made up of people in the end, so why not everybody own their own shit right away? Free will might be pretense anyway, so why not go the full mile. Many things are also gradual processes, and often kind of a feedback loop. In this case I think it's safe to assume anyone who mentions during the interview they'd proudly blow the whistle on any seriously evil stuff they happen to come across, if the official path through superiors gets blocked, would not get hired. Can this be fixed iteratively, or would it make more sense to make a whole new set of organizations, attracting people from wholly different buckets of the population, and once those are up to speed turn the old ones off? Not super realistic, but maybe still more realistic than waiting for people who are entrenched and off the deep end, with a full support network and lots of bucks on the line.. they seem to get worse, not better.

I think trendia's point is not that those people are correct, but that people are influenced by their surroundings; that it is the orgsmizstion we must change, not the people in it.

wordupmaking 9y ago

Though if you subtract the working people for it from an organization, what remains? Not that I disagree, in the same sense that it's too easy to solely blame soldiers for the wars civilians enable politicians to send them into. Of course the folks at the NSA didn't wake up one morning and just decided to be a bit too creepy on their own. But at the same time, no person is a completely passive receptacle for the social pressures of elusive active people, to a degree everybody is responsible for what they take part in. Otherwise, anything/anyone you could point to in criticism and for the purpose of changing any organization could in turn say "don't change me, change my environment", in an endless circle. But it's all made up of people in the end, so why not everybody own their own shit right away? Free will might be pretense anyway, so why not go the full mile. Many things are also gradual processes, and often kind of a feedback loop. In this case I think it's safe to assume anyone who mentions during the interview they'd proudly blow the whistle on any seriously evil stuff they happen to come across, if the official path through superiors gets blocked, would not get hired. Can this be fixed iteratively, or would it make more sense to make a whole new set of organizations, attracting people from wholly different buckets of the population, and once those are up to speed turn the old ones off? Not super realistic, but maybe still more realistic than waiting for people who are entrenched and off the deep end, with a full support network and lots of bucks on the line.. they seem to get worse, not better.