3 ms·

People sometimes think this is about an individual president/politician's values or policy thinking. That might be the case, but over the last decade I've start

People sometimes think this is about an individual president/politician's values or policy thinking. That might be the case, but over the last decade I've started to think that there's a different explanation. Sometimes I call it the "Giant Robot Theory of The Presidency" -- that is, I suspect that occupying the white house is to no small extent a lot like climbing into the cockpit of a large and complex piece of anime mecha. It mediates your senses, your reality is "augmented" in a number of ways, you have information being fed to you from various subsystems. You're empowered, but you're also somewhat isolated by the cockpit, too, and it's easy to start to think about reality in terms of what the various feeds and subsystems are telling you and think about your actions largely in terms of the controls in front of you. Perhaps at first you focus that way because it's all so new and awesome and exciting, then later because you just got used to it while barely noticing how totally you accepted this interface to the world. Over time the system itself shapes your perceptions and thinking, and you think less like what you were before you climbed in and more like the system itself. That's a colorful metaphor for saying that once you're in the leadership of an organization, you see like the organization does, because you "see" via the organization, but I think it adds something. (BTW -- it's also true of everyone to some extent. It's a useful exercise to think about exactly what kind of mecha you've climbed into and how it's influencing you.) I think this tendency may be more pronounced in organizations with strong mission-oriented and ends-justify-means cultures.. like, say military/defense/national security orgs, which we intentionally staff with people we train to set the value of human autonomy and even life (theirs and others) below various goals and "interests."

closetnerd 11y ago
> That's a colorful metaphor Colorful yet probable. It's part of the reason I've started to believe that someone with strong conviction like Ron Paul would actually be best for a while.
pmalynin 11y ago
The White House is a Reaper that indoctrinates its crew.
joezydeco 11y ago
I somewhat subscribe to the same theory, but it's augmented by the idea that there is stuff out there we just don't know about and never will. Daniel Ellsberg (the leaker of the Pentagon Papers) described it perfectly when talking about how he briefed Henry Kissinger upon Kissinger's appointment as National Security Advisor under Nixon: "First, you'll be exhilarated by some of this new information, and by having it all — so much! incredible! — suddenly available to you. But second, almost as fast, you will feel like a fool for having studied, written, talked about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions made by presidents for years without having known of the existence of all this information, which presidents and others had and you didn't, and which must have influenced their decisions in ways you couldn't even guess. In particular, you'll feel foolish for having literally rubbed shoulders for over a decade with some officials and consultants who did have access to all this information you didn't know about and didn't know they had, and you'll be stunned that they kept that secret from you so well." http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber...
- wwweston 11y ago
  Thank you for adding this! Reading that statement by Ellsberg is actually one of the things that crystalized the thinking I described above. I think he's also giving thoughtful people hints about how they can mitigate the problem: "..it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?' And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues....and with myself. "You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours." And this advice is relevant beyond the realm of classified information. Most people are likely to find themselves in situations where they have what they regard as privileged information/perspective that in some way they can't share with others in discussion. Remembering that other people may still have valuable contributions to make in that discussion (and perhaps even a perspective that you don't have) can help ensure what you know doesn't keep you from learning what you don't.

closetnerd 11y ago

> That's a colorful metaphor Colorful yet probable. It's part of the reason I've started to believe that someone with strong conviction like Ron Paul would actually be best for a while.

pmalynin 11y ago

The White House is a Reaper that indoctrinates its crew.

joezydeco 11y ago

I somewhat subscribe to the same theory, but it's augmented by the idea that there is stuff out there we just don't know about and never will. Daniel Ellsberg (the leaker of the Pentagon Papers) described it perfectly when talking about how he briefed Henry Kissinger upon Kissinger's appointment as National Security Advisor under Nixon: "First, you'll be exhilarated by some of this new information, and by having it all — so much! incredible! — suddenly available to you. But second, almost as fast, you will feel like a fool for having studied, written, talked about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions made by presidents for years without having known of the existence of all this information, which presidents and others had and you didn't, and which must have influenced their decisions in ways you couldn't even guess. In particular, you'll feel foolish for having literally rubbed shoulders for over a decade with some officials and consultants who did have access to all this information you didn't know about and didn't know they had, and you'll be stunned that they kept that secret from you so well." http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber...

wwweston 11y ago
Thank you for adding this! Reading that statement by Ellsberg is actually one of the things that crystalized the thinking I described above. I think he's also giving thoughtful people hints about how they can mitigate the problem: "..it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?' And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues....and with myself. "You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours." And this advice is relevant beyond the realm of classified information. Most people are likely to find themselves in situations where they have what they regard as privileged information/perspective that in some way they can't share with others in discussion. Remembering that other people may still have valuable contributions to make in that discussion (and perhaps even a perspective that you don't have) can help ensure what you know doesn't keep you from learning what you don't.