3 ms·
<< What is the implication here? Hmm. I am trying not to assume too much, but I will attempt to respond based on summaries of some real events in Russia and co
by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
<< What is the implication here?
Hmm. I am trying not to assume too much, but I will attempt to respond based on summaries of some real events in Russia and corporate America.
In organizations, where leadership style resembles Christmas tree more than a pyramid, people invariably are beholden to the leader. Depending on the organization's culture, the leader may allow little to no dissent. While leader may not explicitly tell you to do X, their wishes are known and some people do respond with trying to 'guess' what their leader wants.
In other words, the implication may be that no one is overtly influencing other people, but, in an attempt to save their positions, people produce documentation their leader may want to see.
Which, honestly, happens a lot more often than it should.
- benator 2y agoThanks and yes, I agree with you! Reality is muddy and complicated and political tendrils reach deeply into all government functions. I would like to ask though: what do you think the author wants us to believe? a) that data is more unreliable because of corrupt influence, or b) data is less reliable because of statistical department cuts and a partisan audience? If it’s b, why mention a? It’s not that I disagree with b or a, just that if you are arguing for one, why mention the other except to say “yeah, this happened but it doesn’t contradict my view because x”
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y agoI re-read the article. I will admit that this question stumped me, because the answer here is an honest: I am not sure.