I think fundamentally this confuses "effective" with "good" in a way that seems actually quite incurious and verges towards dangerous. Sure, to collaboratively

I think fundamentally this confuses "effective" with "good" in a way that seems actually quite incurious and verges towards dangerous. Sure, to collaboratively build complex technical products, teams must cooperatively form an understanding of various parts, concepts, whatever. And yes, working with a group requires us to be conscientious of the complex and varied factors that impact on the effectiveness of that group. But ... do those things make you "good people"? What if your team is working really great as a group to build a guidance system for a deadly weapon? What if your team is sense-making in the process of building tools to deliver disinformation in a highly targeted way in the lead up to an election? What if you're really great as a group at building tools to let the state find and censor dissenting speech? Something's clearly missing here. And the failure to seriously consider what might be good or bad is also present in the author's sweeping claims about everything else that we collectively imagine into being: > In humanity, participatory sense-making is how we find shared reality in the different pieces of the world that each of us see. We build new concepts that exist only among our minds: money, economy, justice, law, music, conservation, fashion. These are real things that have causal effects on the physical world because we collectively create them. Is money "good"? Is "justice" good? Is law "good"? Maybe. There's another lens which might say that all of these are mechanisms by which powerful people and institutions reinforce their own power. The law is good if you get to help write the law. Money is good especially if you get to use taxes to get a population to feed and supply your army. Justice is good if it lets you punish anyone who attempts to subvert your authority. Maybe an example of the trifecta of these would be the "participatory sense-making" that introduced the encomienda system? What if "sense-making" itself can be a weapon? Sure, let's all try to have healthy communication and collaboration practices in our teams. But let's not delude ourselves that this makes us good.