3 ms·

Calling stuff a "conspiracy theory" is just a thought-terminating cliché, and measuring the ability of humans to conspire [0] by equating that ability with stuf

Calling stuff a "conspiracy theory" is just a thought-terminating cliché, and measuring the ability of humans to conspire [0] by equating that ability with stuff like Elvis still being alive isn't the attempt of an argument, it's just a slogan. [0] for which there is no communication between them required, or even conscious desire to "conspire" of single one of them. Consider how mobbing can go. People don't go "so, we're all racist, and this new guy is X, so I propose you are kinda sarcastic to him, and I forget to remind him of the thing tomorrow". It doesn't even happen that way in bad fiction, much less so in real life. Or put more positively, consider how teamwork and healthy group behavior can go, too. Most of it is simply done, gets fine-tuned by doing, and only some of it is thought, spoken or written about, usually in hindsight, often as a rationalization.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
What is "cliché" is to offer up "McKinsey is this shady organization we all hate!" as some sort of evidence that they could conspire to organize this sort of thing. Getting back to the original thesis of the article, the author is stating that people making the decision on RTO (the "elites", another nebulous scary term...) are doing so because commercial real estate is so critical to their decision making process. If anyone can provide any evidence that McKinsey could orchestrate such a thing (with actual details), I'm all ears.
- computerthings 2y ago
  The claim was that "the world is not this coordinated", not that McKinsey specifically is orchestrating it all by themselves. And my response to that claim was that it doesn't even have to be "coordinated". Do you disagree? I'm talking about the most rudimentary social dynamics we can observe and take part in daily. We can "conspire with" total strangers even, ad hoc, if we both realize our interests are otherwise endangered. It starts with body language and tone of voice, not memos saying "let's do a crime".
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    Yes, I thoroughly believe that behaviors can be coordinated without explicit agreements. That is essentially what the entire field of economics is about: decomposing how people respond to different incentives to act in an "agglomerated" fashion. The thing I hate about articles like this one, and claims like "look at the shady stuff McKinsey has done" is that they never really even attempt to provide evidence about how the incentives around propping up com. real estate values would be enough to sway decision makers. They just try to tie some loose threads together, and use scary terms like "elites" as if all of the elites acted with one mind. There have been plenty of comments elsewhere in this thread making the argument that the connection between com. real estate values and people making the actual RTO decisions is far too tenuous to have that be a primary motivator. Also, having been a director and had lots of interactions with C-suite folks, I find it laughable to think that of all the concerns high-level execs have that "helping the stock portfolios of other rich people" is their primary driver.
  - joquarky 2y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

What is "cliché" is to offer up "McKinsey is this shady organization we all hate!" as some sort of evidence that they could conspire to organize this sort of thing. Getting back to the original thesis of the article, the author is stating that people making the decision on RTO (the "elites", another nebulous scary term...) are doing so because commercial real estate is so critical to their decision making process. If anyone can provide any evidence that McKinsey could orchestrate such a thing (with actual details), I'm all ears.

computerthings 2y ago
The claim was that "the world is not this coordinated", not that McKinsey specifically is orchestrating it all by themselves. And my response to that claim was that it doesn't even have to be "coordinated". Do you disagree? I'm talking about the most rudimentary social dynamics we can observe and take part in daily. We can "conspire with" total strangers even, ad hoc, if we both realize our interests are otherwise endangered. It starts with body language and tone of voice, not memos saying "let's do a crime".
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Yes, I thoroughly believe that behaviors can be coordinated without explicit agreements. That is essentially what the entire field of economics is about: decomposing how people respond to different incentives to act in an "agglomerated" fashion. The thing I hate about articles like this one, and claims like "look at the shady stuff McKinsey has done" is that they never really even attempt to provide evidence about how the incentives around propping up com. real estate values would be enough to sway decision makers. They just try to tie some loose threads together, and use scary terms like "elites" as if all of the elites acted with one mind. There have been plenty of comments elsewhere in this thread making the argument that the connection between com. real estate values and people making the actual RTO decisions is far too tenuous to have that be a primary motivator. Also, having been a director and had lots of interactions with C-suite folks, I find it laughable to think that of all the concerns high-level execs have that "helping the stock portfolios of other rich people" is their primary driver.
- joquarky 2y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order