4 ms·

I hadn't realized it before today, but Jerry Pournelle (a science fiction writer) pioneered here (with two groups, not three, which is an advance in understandi

I hadn't realized it before today, but Jerry Pournelle (a science fiction writer) pioneered here (with two groups, not three, which is an advance in understanding.) "Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people": First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration. Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc. The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization." https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html

guerrilla 4y ago
That assumes a static hierarchy. Cooperatives could fix most of that though, since anyone becoming a problem could be recalled from their position.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway280000 4y ago
  Of relevance to this point might be Union Democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Democracy It examines a particularly democratic union which seemed unusually able to withstand degeneration into an oligarchy.
  - Nomentatus 4y ago
    Very consistent with Madison's thinking. The U.S. eventual became less fractionated, and fell into large parties, but different unions, for quite different jobs, might have more persistent differences.
jmyeet 4y ago
It reminds me of the quote: "the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy". The thing about the Iron Rule (which I agree with) is that it appears in online forums too. In placaes like Wikipedia, Stack Overflow and various forums the community divides into three groups: 1. Content creators: those who past and answer questions, etc; 2. Moderators: those who write and enforce rules and standards; and 3. Lurkers: those who simply read. The second group, while useful, has to constantly be kept in check. No matter how originally (and concurrently) well-intentioned, there will always be a tendency to create and enforce more rules to solve perceived and actual "problems". I'd be interested to know what psychology drives people to join the moderator camp.
- wsb_mod3 4y ago
  I think they main incentive that drives people to initially become moderators is the desire to keep the community they operate in clean and rule abiding. In well-policed communities where moderators actively listen to users, or where people feel reporting and flagging mechanisms work, I would imagine people generally feel empowered enough that they are satisfied remaining a regular user. I don't think many moderators seek to expand their rulesets, as it really just becomes additional (often free) work for them. Increasing and enforcing more rules is a cost that is only worth bearing when what isn't being actioned is causing enough damage to warrant the additional work.
  - Nomentatus 4y ago
    I've too often seen moderators decide that their job is to prevent controversies; often leading to them forbidding any poster from contradicting any other poster; creating a "first misinformation wins" forum. This is less work for them, way less cognitive work but it creates ridiculous and unfortunate results.
    - wsb_mod3 4y ago
      Do you mind giving a few examples? I can't think of any communities like that.
ItsMonkk 4y ago
This reminds me a lot of the Conflict vs Mistake framing[0] which is expanded on by his Tragedy of Legible Technique article[1]. It also reminds me a lot of the Steve Jobs Product vs Marketing clip[2]. > When the Director of the CDC asserts an opinion, she has to optimize for two things - being right, and keeping power. If she doesn't optimize for the second, she gets replaced as CDC Director by someone who does. That means she's trying to solve a harder problem than Zvi is, and it makes sense that sometimes, despite having more resources than Zvi, she does worse at it. It seems to me like the issue is actually in rent-seeking, where the more rent-seeking you have available, the more the marginal mistake person converts into a conflict person. In a world of perfect competition there would be no room for conflicts, and only once you have freely available rents does the land-grabbing phase begin. When your rules are written by the conflicters, for the conflicters benefit, it's already to late. They'll certainly never compromise on the simple correct path. [0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ [1]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-of-legible https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VBqTViEx4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VBqTViEx4
stan3223 4y ago
I heard someone say - 'Problem with corporations is that most of them are run by finance people and lawyers.' I think they fall into your 2nd group - administrators.
aetimmes 4y ago
I had been looking for this specific quote for months; thank you for surfacing it!

guerrilla 4y ago

That assumes a static hierarchy. Cooperatives could fix most of that though, since anyone becoming a problem could be recalled from their position.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwaway280000 4y ago
Of relevance to this point might be Union Democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Democracy It examines a particularly democratic union which seemed unusually able to withstand degeneration into an oligarchy.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  Very consistent with Madison's thinking. The U.S. eventual became less fractionated, and fell into large parties, but different unions, for quite different jobs, might have more persistent differences.

jmyeet 4y ago

It reminds me of the quote: "the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy". The thing about the Iron Rule (which I agree with) is that it appears in online forums too. In placaes like Wikipedia, Stack Overflow and various forums the community divides into three groups: 1. Content creators: those who past and answer questions, etc; 2. Moderators: those who write and enforce rules and standards; and 3. Lurkers: those who simply read. The second group, while useful, has to constantly be kept in check. No matter how originally (and concurrently) well-intentioned, there will always be a tendency to create and enforce more rules to solve perceived and actual "problems". I'd be interested to know what psychology drives people to join the moderator camp.

wsb_mod3 4y ago
I think they main incentive that drives people to initially become moderators is the desire to keep the community they operate in clean and rule abiding. In well-policed communities where moderators actively listen to users, or where people feel reporting and flagging mechanisms work, I would imagine people generally feel empowered enough that they are satisfied remaining a regular user. I don't think many moderators seek to expand their rulesets, as it really just becomes additional (often free) work for them. Increasing and enforcing more rules is a cost that is only worth bearing when what isn't being actioned is causing enough damage to warrant the additional work.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  I've too often seen moderators decide that their job is to prevent controversies; often leading to them forbidding any poster from contradicting any other poster; creating a "first misinformation wins" forum. This is less work for them, way less cognitive work but it creates ridiculous and unfortunate results.
  - wsb_mod3 4y ago
    Do you mind giving a few examples? I can't think of any communities like that.

ItsMonkk 4y ago

This reminds me a lot of the Conflict vs Mistake framing[0] which is expanded on by his Tragedy of Legible Technique article[1]. It also reminds me a lot of the Steve Jobs Product vs Marketing clip[2]. > When the Director of the CDC asserts an opinion, she has to optimize for two things - being right, and keeping power. If she doesn't optimize for the second, she gets replaced as CDC Director by someone who does. That means she's trying to solve a harder problem than Zvi is, and it makes sense that sometimes, despite having more resources than Zvi, she does worse at it. It seems to me like the issue is actually in rent-seeking, where the more rent-seeking you have available, the more the marginal mistake person converts into a conflict person. In a world of perfect competition there would be no room for conflicts, and only once you have freely available rents does the land-grabbing phase begin. When your rules are written by the conflicters, for the conflicters benefit, it's already to late. They'll certainly never compromise on the simple correct path. [0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ [1]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-of-legible https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VBqTViEx4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VBqTViEx4

stan3223 4y ago

I heard someone say - 'Problem with corporations is that most of them are run by finance people and lawyers.' I think they fall into your 2nd group - administrators.

aetimmes 4y ago

I had been looking for this specific quote for months; thank you for surfacing it!