4 ms·

This is how many/most people behave when confronted with real consequences. No, I don't think it is, and it's the pervasive belief that they do that gives the

This is how many/most people behave when confronted with real consequences. No, I don't think it is, and it's the pervasive belief that they do that gives the few who do license to continue doing so.

BalinKing 6y ago
Personally, I assume that these kinds of people, by and large, do get away with it (although I guess that's just a way of restating the original assumption).
vlovich123 6y ago
I mean you are free to believe whatever you want, but, unless you also believe that it’s a large secret conspiracy to fill the important positions with incompetence just in time for a crisis (or to create a crisis down the road), you’re going to have a tough time explaining similar disasters that show similar behavior from your fellow man. At most you can say that greed causes leaders to promote and hire this kind of person, but that’s a tenuous argument in my opinion. The real world observation of WW2, the Milford experiments, Stanford prisoner experiments, Asch conformity experiments, and so many cases of corporate malfeasance, at least to me, show pretty directly that people like Allan McDonald are the exception. The reason also makes sense to me. Social conformity, if you’re in the “in” group yields a lot of benefits and being in the “out” group has a lot of costs. You’re talking not just about societal conformance pressures through things like being a pariah at work or being passed over for promotion. This can be personal pressures where you suddenly have financial pressures you didn’t have before because no one is willing to give you a break. You’ve got your family either putting pressure on you to ease their lives or your own guilt that your family is paying a price for your actions. To withstand that is a minority of people, like those who have strong support from family and trusted friends for whom the societal bonds aren’t as important.
- cmeacham98 6y ago
  To be fair, situations were the objector is listened to are non-events the public will never know of, so it is hard to know the true ratio. I do agree that ethics seems to take a saddeningly low priority in most powerful leaders in the world, but there are some areas in society where this isn't the case: I remember reading a thread a little while ago here on HN about how seriously safety is taken in nuclear power and how anyone involved in the process can object.
  - vlovich123 6y ago
    I think we’re in agreement. All I’m saying is that that’s the default behavior for most people - no one wants to be left holding the bag. If you actually strive to create a different culture you can have different results. I don’t think this is a lack of ethics in the political class per se. It’s really hard to build this kind of structure, there’s no credit involved (since you’re preventing hypothetical future catastrophes), and politically difficult to defend to constituencies that don’t agree with your caution (“repeal regulations”). You might also be wrong and your opponents could be right so you’re taking a gamble on something that has little to no upside and lots of risk. That being said, (and as a person with a pro-nuclear bias) I will note though that Fukushima had engineers raising dissent about it and warning/begging/pleading with the bureaucracy to harden the defenses against a tsunami. Admittedly maybe you’re talking about Western policies.

This is how many/most people behave when confronted with real consequences. No, I don't think it is, and it's the pervasive belief that they do that gives the few who do license to continue doing so.

BalinKing 6y ago

Personally, I assume that these kinds of people, by and large, do get away with it (although I guess that's just a way of restating the original assumption).

vlovich123 6y ago

I mean you are free to believe whatever you want, but, unless you also believe that it’s a large secret conspiracy to fill the important positions with incompetence just in time for a crisis (or to create a crisis down the road), you’re going to have a tough time explaining similar disasters that show similar behavior from your fellow man. At most you can say that greed causes leaders to promote and hire this kind of person, but that’s a tenuous argument in my opinion. The real world observation of WW2, the Milford experiments, Stanford prisoner experiments, Asch conformity experiments, and so many cases of corporate malfeasance, at least to me, show pretty directly that people like Allan McDonald are the exception. The reason also makes sense to me. Social conformity, if you’re in the “in” group yields a lot of benefits and being in the “out” group has a lot of costs. You’re talking not just about societal conformance pressures through things like being a pariah at work or being passed over for promotion. This can be personal pressures where you suddenly have financial pressures you didn’t have before because no one is willing to give you a break. You’ve got your family either putting pressure on you to ease their lives or your own guilt that your family is paying a price for your actions. To withstand that is a minority of people, like those who have strong support from family and trusted friends for whom the societal bonds aren’t as important.

cmeacham98 6y ago
To be fair, situations were the objector is listened to are non-events the public will never know of, so it is hard to know the true ratio. I do agree that ethics seems to take a saddeningly low priority in most powerful leaders in the world, but there are some areas in society where this isn't the case: I remember reading a thread a little while ago here on HN about how seriously safety is taken in nuclear power and how anyone involved in the process can object.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  I think we’re in agreement. All I’m saying is that that’s the default behavior for most people - no one wants to be left holding the bag. If you actually strive to create a different culture you can have different results. I don’t think this is a lack of ethics in the political class per se. It’s really hard to build this kind of structure, there’s no credit involved (since you’re preventing hypothetical future catastrophes), and politically difficult to defend to constituencies that don’t agree with your caution (“repeal regulations”). You might also be wrong and your opponents could be right so you’re taking a gamble on something that has little to no upside and lots of risk. That being said, (and as a person with a pro-nuclear bias) I will note though that Fukushima had engineers raising dissent about it and warning/begging/pleading with the bureaucracy to harden the defenses against a tsunami. Admittedly maybe you’re talking about Western policies.