6 ms·

> It turns out that the kinds of career pressures familiar to employees everywhere — the desire to revive a stalled career or obtain a minor promotion — can be

> It turns out that the kinds of career pressures familiar to employees everywhere — the desire to revive a stalled career or obtain a minor promotion — can be enough to incentivize lower- and midlevel officials to violate professional obligations, fundamental norms and even basic morality. I understand that research needed to look for credible data in order to advance, but these conclusions are really close to what Hannah Arendt tells in the Banality of Evil: regular citizens trying to get their promotion and advance their careers, doing untold damage in the process because they happened to be working during an autocracy. It's nice though that data eventually corroborate what philosophy first observes, even if the observation doesn't necessarily directly prompts an investigation.

ToucanLoucan 5mo ago
Unfortunately she had the wool pulled over her eyes by her primary subject. Eichmann was absolutely every bit the monster you'd assume for the Architect of the Holocaust. He played up being "just a functionary" incredibly well during Nuremberg, but if you look into his history, perhaps he wasn't as flamboyant as some of his contemporaries like Himmler or of course, Hitler, but he very much held similar views. This is not to say she got it wrong, I think the banality of evil absolutely holds up in a number of readings of historical events. I just don't think Eichmann was a good example.
- enriquto 5mo ago
  I don't know how accurate is what you explain, but the fact that Eichmann was not tried at Nuremberg certainly does not help your credibility.
  - dcrazy 5mo ago
    Eichmann escaped from custody in 1945 and successfully hid until Mossad tracked him down in Argentina in 1960.
  - gertlex 5mo ago
    Looks like it was the Israelis who put him on trial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_trial > When he took the stand in his own defense, he portrayed himself as a mid-level functionary following orders.[32] He repeatedly claimed he was "merely a little cog in the machinery" of genocide, not a policymaker.
- inglor_cz 5mo ago
  You are mixing up Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust, with Albert Speer, who was an architect in the original sense of the word. Speer was tried in Nuremberg. He indeed played a "I was just an emotional artist and I never knew anything about the Holocaust" game during that trial. Given that they weren't able to disprove his assertion that he left the Posen Speech early (that was a speech in 1943 where Himmler openly discussed the Holocaust), he got away with his life, though not with his freedom. He got a 20 year sentence and served it in the Spandau Prison. (Also, he was present at the Posen Speech, which he later acknowledged in a letter.) Eichman, on the other hand, was only caught in Argentina a long time after the war, and everyone who came into contact with him described him as a pathetic mediocre personality with a strong tendency to suck up to everyone stronger, including the very Israeli commandos and jailers who held him in custody.
snaking0776 5mo ago
I’d also recommend reading Modernity and the Holocaust as a good intro to studies of the Holocaust through a similar lens. None of this is new
- calvinmorrison 5mo ago
  Right the functionalism-intentionalism debate is certainly glossed over in middle school history studies, and makes it all a little less Hollywood.
jake-coworker 5mo ago
I think this is an artifact of any large organization of people. Humans tend toward doing things that are best for them. The challenge of large-organization-designers (governments, companies, etc.) is how to design a system that 1) leverages this behavior; ie maximize the value of ambition to the system, and 2) is not vulnerable to this behavior; ie checks & balances Small organizations can get around this because outcomes are easier to share, and selecting people who aren't selfish is possible. We can do our best to put guidelines around selfishness, but history tells us this is hard
- pepperoni_pizza 5mo ago
  > Humans tend toward doing things that are best for them. I don't think that assumption holds. People routinely vote for candidates that will worsen their lives, gamble, smoke, don't exercise, some people even don't brush their teeth. On the other hand, there's as many examples of people being selfless as of people being selfish. Human behavior is much more complex.
  - saltwatercowboy 5mo ago
    For sake of not derailing the discussion, I think the more appropriate reading would be "people act in what they believe to be self-interest", however flawed the notion of the benefit
    - marcosdumay 5mo ago
      Now you have weakened the generalization to the point it's meaningless. What act exactly do people believe to be in their self-interest? Why are you claiming it's the anti-social ones and not the pro-social if the believe is not rooted on reality?
      - vitally3643 5mo ago
        Belief is categorically not rooted in reality. That's why it's called belief and not fact. Humans are intrinsically irrational. That is a plain and simple fact. Humans operate exclusively on what they think is true instead of what is objective fact. Subjectively an individual human acts in ways that are roughly rational and coherent within their belief system and world view. The problem is that this frame of reference is entirely subjective and is only tangentially related to consensus objective reality. Assuming that you can apply your own reasoning and logic to all other humans is fallacy. You must accept the fact that other people do not share your world view and will not act with what you, personally deem to be rationality.
thrawa8387336 5mo ago
The banality of mentioning the holocaust in a non-related thread. That should be Hannah's title
- InitialLastName 5mo ago
  Non-related? The article is about institutional actions under authoritarianism and the holocaust is the bureaucratic apex of the most studied authoritarian regime in history. TFA mentions Hannah Arendt in the introduction and discusses the holocaust (if briefly, because most of its focus is on more modern regimes.
- harimau777 5mo ago
  The article itself mentions her work.
sdoering 5mo ago
> but these conclusions are really close to what Hannah Arendt tells in the Banality of Evil That's why the article actually mentions it.
- gchamonlive 5mo ago
  I read a second time and didn't find it, had to search it with the browser. Oh eyes...
joe_the_user 5mo ago
Well, I gotta mention that Arendt relationship with actual NAZI ideologue Martin Heidegger might have somewhat colored her analysis of evil. I mean, she had a reason to dismiss the importance of ideas, propaganda and prominent intellectuals in creating "evil" regimes when she had a connection to such things (just as she and others covered up how much of an overt NAZI and antisemite Heidegger was, even Hitler took power). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt#Marburg_(1924%E2%80%931926) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt#Marburg_(1924%E2... And naturally this is a controversial take since Arendt and Heidegger have defenders to the present day.
- gchamonlive 5mo ago
  In which ways do you think it might have colored her analysis? Was she maybe "too soft" for current standards?
  - boelboel 5mo ago
    Arendt her book is BS as she only attended about six weeks of the trial, missing most survivor testimonies and the more crucial cross examination (the whole trial took many months). She basically relied on transcripts and her own preconceived theories. Eichmann wasn't just some bureaucrat but wanted to be seen as just a cog in the system. She basically ate his act and now everyone has to bring her up whenever something evil happens which people seemingly don't seem to care about. In reality Eichmann was a man who had genuine ideology, was personally driven and extremely calculated. Raul Hilberg holocaust expert is a better source for information on Eichmann, he wrote (one of) the best works on the holocaust and is a genuine historian, was one of the first people to write an extensive history of it . He's not exactly as promoted today (in the media/general public) as actually following his view would poke some holes in the 'holocaust industry' (this doesn't mean that I in any way minimize or doubt the holocaust and its cruelty).
    - gchamonlive 5mo ago
      So you think she wasn't competent to have written what she wrote because of not having participated in the entirety of the trial and because of her preconceptions? What makes it hard for me to take what you say at face value and as credible source is you writing off the work as BS just because. It's a really important and recognized philosophical work, even if it's not perfect.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

ToucanLoucan 5mo ago

Unfortunately she had the wool pulled over her eyes by her primary subject. Eichmann was absolutely every bit the monster you'd assume for the Architect of the Holocaust. He played up being "just a functionary" incredibly well during Nuremberg, but if you look into his history, perhaps he wasn't as flamboyant as some of his contemporaries like Himmler or of course, Hitler, but he very much held similar views. This is not to say she got it wrong, I think the banality of evil absolutely holds up in a number of readings of historical events. I just don't think Eichmann was a good example.

enriquto 5mo ago
I don't know how accurate is what you explain, but the fact that Eichmann was not tried at Nuremberg certainly does not help your credibility.
- dcrazy 5mo ago
  Eichmann escaped from custody in 1945 and successfully hid until Mossad tracked him down in Argentina in 1960.
- gertlex 5mo ago
  Looks like it was the Israelis who put him on trial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_trial > When he took the stand in his own defense, he portrayed himself as a mid-level functionary following orders.[32] He repeatedly claimed he was "merely a little cog in the machinery" of genocide, not a policymaker.
inglor_cz 5mo ago
You are mixing up Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust, with Albert Speer, who was an architect in the original sense of the word. Speer was tried in Nuremberg. He indeed played a "I was just an emotional artist and I never knew anything about the Holocaust" game during that trial. Given that they weren't able to disprove his assertion that he left the Posen Speech early (that was a speech in 1943 where Himmler openly discussed the Holocaust), he got away with his life, though not with his freedom. He got a 20 year sentence and served it in the Spandau Prison. (Also, he was present at the Posen Speech, which he later acknowledged in a letter.) Eichman, on the other hand, was only caught in Argentina a long time after the war, and everyone who came into contact with him described him as a pathetic mediocre personality with a strong tendency to suck up to everyone stronger, including the very Israeli commandos and jailers who held him in custody.

snaking0776 5mo ago

I’d also recommend reading Modernity and the Holocaust as a good intro to studies of the Holocaust through a similar lens. None of this is new

calvinmorrison 5mo ago
Right the functionalism-intentionalism debate is certainly glossed over in middle school history studies, and makes it all a little less Hollywood.

jake-coworker 5mo ago

I think this is an artifact of any large organization of people. Humans tend toward doing things that are best for them. The challenge of large-organization-designers (governments, companies, etc.) is how to design a system that 1) leverages this behavior; ie maximize the value of ambition to the system, and 2) is not vulnerable to this behavior; ie checks & balances Small organizations can get around this because outcomes are easier to share, and selecting people who aren't selfish is possible. We can do our best to put guidelines around selfishness, but history tells us this is hard

pepperoni_pizza 5mo ago
> Humans tend toward doing things that are best for them. I don't think that assumption holds. People routinely vote for candidates that will worsen their lives, gamble, smoke, don't exercise, some people even don't brush their teeth. On the other hand, there's as many examples of people being selfless as of people being selfish. Human behavior is much more complex.
- saltwatercowboy 5mo ago
  For sake of not derailing the discussion, I think the more appropriate reading would be "people act in what they believe to be self-interest", however flawed the notion of the benefit
  - marcosdumay 5mo ago
    Now you have weakened the generalization to the point it's meaningless. What act exactly do people believe to be in their self-interest? Why are you claiming it's the anti-social ones and not the pro-social if the believe is not rooted on reality?
    - vitally3643 5mo ago
      Belief is categorically not rooted in reality. That's why it's called belief and not fact. Humans are intrinsically irrational. That is a plain and simple fact. Humans operate exclusively on what they think is true instead of what is objective fact. Subjectively an individual human acts in ways that are roughly rational and coherent within their belief system and world view. The problem is that this frame of reference is entirely subjective and is only tangentially related to consensus objective reality. Assuming that you can apply your own reasoning and logic to all other humans is fallacy. You must accept the fact that other people do not share your world view and will not act with what you, personally deem to be rationality.

thrawa8387336 5mo ago

The banality of mentioning the holocaust in a non-related thread. That should be Hannah's title

InitialLastName 5mo ago
Non-related? The article is about institutional actions under authoritarianism and the holocaust is the bureaucratic apex of the most studied authoritarian regime in history. TFA mentions Hannah Arendt in the introduction and discusses the holocaust (if briefly, because most of its focus is on more modern regimes.
harimau777 5mo ago
The article itself mentions her work.

sdoering 5mo ago

> but these conclusions are really close to what Hannah Arendt tells in the Banality of Evil That's why the article actually mentions it.

gchamonlive 5mo ago
I read a second time and didn't find it, had to search it with the browser. Oh eyes...

joe_the_user 5mo ago

Well, I gotta mention that Arendt relationship with actual NAZI ideologue Martin Heidegger might have somewhat colored her analysis of evil. I mean, she had a reason to dismiss the importance of ideas, propaganda and prominent intellectuals in creating "evil" regimes when she had a connection to such things (just as she and others covered up how much of an overt NAZI and antisemite Heidegger was, even Hitler took power). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt#Marburg_(1924%E2%80%931926) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt#Marburg_(1924%E2... And naturally this is a controversial take since Arendt and Heidegger have defenders to the present day.

gchamonlive 5mo ago
In which ways do you think it might have colored her analysis? Was she maybe "too soft" for current standards?
- boelboel 5mo ago
  Arendt her book is BS as she only attended about six weeks of the trial, missing most survivor testimonies and the more crucial cross examination (the whole trial took many months). She basically relied on transcripts and her own preconceived theories. Eichmann wasn't just some bureaucrat but wanted to be seen as just a cog in the system. She basically ate his act and now everyone has to bring her up whenever something evil happens which people seemingly don't seem to care about. In reality Eichmann was a man who had genuine ideology, was personally driven and extremely calculated. Raul Hilberg holocaust expert is a better source for information on Eichmann, he wrote (one of) the best works on the holocaust and is a genuine historian, was one of the first people to write an extensive history of it . He's not exactly as promoted today (in the media/general public) as actually following his view would poke some holes in the 'holocaust industry' (this doesn't mean that I in any way minimize or doubt the holocaust and its cruelty).
  - gchamonlive 5mo ago
    So you think she wasn't competent to have written what she wrote because of not having participated in the entirety of the trial and because of her preconceptions? What makes it hard for me to take what you say at face value and as credible source is you writing off the work as BS just because. It's a really important and recognized philosophical work, even if it's not perfect.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]