4 ms·

An additional set of guesses to add on: some individuals are temperamentally better at the extraction than production, prefer it, are more able to exercise dece

An additional set of guesses to add on: some individuals are temperamentally better at the extraction than production, prefer it, are more able to exercise deceit, and have less regret or self shame.

alisonkisk 6y ago
That's obvious but doesn't explain why some organizations are vulnerable to it while others aren't.
- texasbigdata 6y ago
  Wasn’t meaning to be cheeky. Have been thinking about this for a few years and those are observations that took a while. There’s analogies to building institutions in developing countries. See the constitution in the Ukraine (I think) or South Africa. Ginsberg commented publicly and Brayer agreed with (at a talk I attended) from a “source code” perspective those constitutions are superior to the American one. Sort of v2 efforts where you can adopt best practices. Yet most people would agree those younger nations don’t have stronger institutions and than the US. So there has to be both an individual and organizational component. This next comment is completely unbaked and probably terribly phrased, so please read it gently: in addition to the rest of the comments, I believe there is also (and I understand this is a terrible analogy) a “standby passive observer” mechanism mentality similar to how Hitler came to power. Conceptually, people that get hired externally should maybe be >50% of any large organization maybe. Those employees need to see repeated instances of malicious political acts go by (“hey aren’t we going to do something here”) and learn that sort of complicit passivity. That’s probably a terrible analogy, but notice that there seems to be nothing the three or four people in this threat that worked at Intel could do to alter the company’s direction (obviously) but more importantly there’s also a tone of dread and finality in their words, and they seem to have all chosen to have left. So, it seems, like nation building, a complicated problem to understand and solve.
  - tuatoru 6y ago
    As well as the formal, visible institutions like constitutions or legal frameworks there are a lot of invisible ones like cultural norms. In a lot of countries the most powerful institution is "family first" (sometimes extending that to ethnic or religious in-group second). The (currently) successful countries got that way with a different norm, "same rules for everyone". I'm viewing the emphasis on family first in recent Disney/Pixar movies with increasing concern. Sure it sells better in China, but at what long-term cost?
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      >In a lot of countries the most powerful institution is "family first" (sometimes extending that to ethnic or religious in-group second). >The (currently) successful countries got that way with a different norm, "same rules for everyone". Which successful countries are these? As far as I can tell, the richer, more resourceful, established tribes don't follow the same rules as everyone. They might not be as blatantly corrupt as others, or the corruption may be more higher level with more plausible deniability, but "family first" is human nature.
    - drevil-v2 6y ago
      You have any concrete examples of both type of countries?
      - tuatoru 6y ago
        "Same rules for everyone" countries: the archetype would be England after the civil war, where it became established that it didnt' matter if you were related to the King (or were the King), the law applied to you also. (Of course there are varying values of "everyone." Most countries pretty much excluded half of the adult population until recently.) For "family first" countries: this is the default mode for humans, so pretty much every country at one point or another. Nigeria and India would be two ountries where it's important to be related to the right people. India's caste system further reduces opportunities for many, perhaps most, people. For more extreme examples: Yemen, Afghanistan.
dennis_jeeves 6y ago
Most organizations, over a period of time are destined to decline. My views on the subject : https://realminority.wordpress.com/ https://realminority.wordpress.com/ Preventing the decline is possible, but is _continuous_ hard work.

An additional set of guesses to add on: some individuals are temperamentally better at the extraction than production, prefer it, are more able to exercise deceit, and have less regret or self shame.

alisonkisk 6y ago

That's obvious but doesn't explain why some organizations are vulnerable to it while others aren't.

texasbigdata 6y ago
Wasn’t meaning to be cheeky. Have been thinking about this for a few years and those are observations that took a while. There’s analogies to building institutions in developing countries. See the constitution in the Ukraine (I think) or South Africa. Ginsberg commented publicly and Brayer agreed with (at a talk I attended) from a “source code” perspective those constitutions are superior to the American one. Sort of v2 efforts where you can adopt best practices. Yet most people would agree those younger nations don’t have stronger institutions and than the US. So there has to be both an individual and organizational component. This next comment is completely unbaked and probably terribly phrased, so please read it gently: in addition to the rest of the comments, I believe there is also (and I understand this is a terrible analogy) a “standby passive observer” mechanism mentality similar to how Hitler came to power. Conceptually, people that get hired externally should maybe be >50% of any large organization maybe. Those employees need to see repeated instances of malicious political acts go by (“hey aren’t we going to do something here”) and learn that sort of complicit passivity. That’s probably a terrible analogy, but notice that there seems to be nothing the three or four people in this threat that worked at Intel could do to alter the company’s direction (obviously) but more importantly there’s also a tone of dread and finality in their words, and they seem to have all chosen to have left. So, it seems, like nation building, a complicated problem to understand and solve.
- tuatoru 6y ago
  As well as the formal, visible institutions like constitutions or legal frameworks there are a lot of invisible ones like cultural norms. In a lot of countries the most powerful institution is "family first" (sometimes extending that to ethnic or religious in-group second). The (currently) successful countries got that way with a different norm, "same rules for everyone". I'm viewing the emphasis on family first in recent Disney/Pixar movies with increasing concern. Sure it sells better in China, but at what long-term cost?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    >In a lot of countries the most powerful institution is "family first" (sometimes extending that to ethnic or religious in-group second). >The (currently) successful countries got that way with a different norm, "same rules for everyone". Which successful countries are these? As far as I can tell, the richer, more resourceful, established tribes don't follow the same rules as everyone. They might not be as blatantly corrupt as others, or the corruption may be more higher level with more plausible deniability, but "family first" is human nature.
  - drevil-v2 6y ago
    You have any concrete examples of both type of countries?
    - tuatoru 6y ago
      "Same rules for everyone" countries: the archetype would be England after the civil war, where it became established that it didnt' matter if you were related to the King (or were the King), the law applied to you also. (Of course there are varying values of "everyone." Most countries pretty much excluded half of the adult population until recently.) For "family first" countries: this is the default mode for humans, so pretty much every country at one point or another. Nigeria and India would be two ountries where it's important to be related to the right people. India's caste system further reduces opportunities for many, perhaps most, people. For more extreme examples: Yemen, Afghanistan.

dennis_jeeves 6y ago

Most organizations, over a period of time are destined to decline. My views on the subject : https://realminority.wordpress.com/ https://realminority.wordpress.com/ Preventing the decline is possible, but is _continuous_ hard work.