3 ms·

This is quite similar to one of my favorite saying that comes from my background in psychology: "When the mouse presses the lever, don't blame the mouse."

myself248 6y ago
Oooo, that's profound. I ran across an interesting one earlier, understanding Maslow's Needs by negative example: We usually say that, when someone has food and shelter and safety, when they have friends and feel a sense of belonging, they can pursue higher stuff. And we know at some level that if someone is starving, they will do anything to find food -- civilized behavior goes out the window in that mode. But we forget that if someone has no friends and doesn't feel a sense of belonging, they will also stop at nothing to rectify THAT. Suddenly so much conspiracy stuff makes sense.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  understanding Maslow's Needs by negative example Those are usually called “hygiene factors” in the literature.
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    Aye, the most common I've seen being 2-factor hygiene approach to HR & Retention. "Hygiene" for the record has nothing to do with deodorant, at least not per se, but instead the willingness to remove negative traits. However, just because you remove negative traits doesn't mean you have any positives. Just cuz you took a shower this morning, wear clean clothes, and trim your fingernails doesn't mean you're not an asshole, and that we should friends with you. Same deal with jobs, cultures, etc. The work may be risky and dangerous, but if there are enough positives to outweigh those negatives, people might stick around. But even if you strip out the negatives, people will eventually float away from jobs that aren't fulfilling or that don't offer any positives.
JamesBarney 6y ago
For the other side "No, it’s not The Incentives—it’s you" https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2018/10/02/no-its-not-the-incentives-its-you/ https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2018/10/02/no-its-not-the-in...
- bumby 6y ago
  Interesting read, thank you. There’s a distinction to be made between excusing bad behavior, but rather they explaining it. The article seems focused on the former, I’m more interested in the latter. There are intrinsic and extrinsic incentives. I think the important part not touched upon is that for those actors extrinsically motivated (e.g., status, money, etc.) the system incentive will influence behavior much more than those more affected by intrinsic motivations. The article is right that extrinsic motivations don’t excuse immoral behavior but when morals are lacking external controls are still needed. Developing the right extrinsic incentives provides guardrails for those who tend to lack intrinsic motivation that align. The article seems to think the solution is to “just act morally” which works at the individual level but that’s not really a policy at a system level (especially once we acknowledge everyone doesn’t share the same goals/motivations/morals)
- HelloMcFly 6y ago
  I don't really see it as "the other side". Identifying root cause of behavior is critical to modifying it. The "don't blame the mouse" saying is simplified; scientists (as in this article) live in a more complex world. Just because we can understand what led to a set of behavior for scientists, or others, doesn't mean they have no accountability for their actions, but it usually does mean there is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution, otherwise we'll only ever be treating the symptoms.

myself248 6y ago

Oooo, that's profound. I ran across an interesting one earlier, understanding Maslow's Needs by negative example: We usually say that, when someone has food and shelter and safety, when they have friends and feel a sense of belonging, they can pursue higher stuff. And we know at some level that if someone is starving, they will do anything to find food -- civilized behavior goes out the window in that mode. But we forget that if someone has no friends and doesn't feel a sense of belonging, they will also stop at nothing to rectify THAT. Suddenly so much conspiracy stuff makes sense.

goatinaboat 6y ago
understanding Maslow's Needs by negative example Those are usually called “hygiene factors” in the literature.
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  Aye, the most common I've seen being 2-factor hygiene approach to HR & Retention. "Hygiene" for the record has nothing to do with deodorant, at least not per se, but instead the willingness to remove negative traits. However, just because you remove negative traits doesn't mean you have any positives. Just cuz you took a shower this morning, wear clean clothes, and trim your fingernails doesn't mean you're not an asshole, and that we should friends with you. Same deal with jobs, cultures, etc. The work may be risky and dangerous, but if there are enough positives to outweigh those negatives, people might stick around. But even if you strip out the negatives, people will eventually float away from jobs that aren't fulfilling or that don't offer any positives.

JamesBarney 6y ago

For the other side "No, it’s not The Incentives—it’s you" https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2018/10/02/no-its-not-the-incentives-its-you/ https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2018/10/02/no-its-not-the-in...

bumby 6y ago
Interesting read, thank you. There’s a distinction to be made between excusing bad behavior, but rather they explaining it. The article seems focused on the former, I’m more interested in the latter. There are intrinsic and extrinsic incentives. I think the important part not touched upon is that for those actors extrinsically motivated (e.g., status, money, etc.) the system incentive will influence behavior much more than those more affected by intrinsic motivations. The article is right that extrinsic motivations don’t excuse immoral behavior but when morals are lacking external controls are still needed. Developing the right extrinsic incentives provides guardrails for those who tend to lack intrinsic motivation that align. The article seems to think the solution is to “just act morally” which works at the individual level but that’s not really a policy at a system level (especially once we acknowledge everyone doesn’t share the same goals/motivations/morals)
HelloMcFly 6y ago
I don't really see it as "the other side". Identifying root cause of behavior is critical to modifying it. The "don't blame the mouse" saying is simplified; scientists (as in this article) live in a more complex world. Just because we can understand what led to a set of behavior for scientists, or others, doesn't mean they have no accountability for their actions, but it usually does mean there is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution, otherwise we'll only ever be treating the symptoms.