This is in Finite and Infinite Games too. People mostly don’t want to go in directions that might have surprising or undefined outcomes.
-
-
This doesn’t just apply to ethical questions. The way to literally make the most money is not gonna be the same as “do the most prestigious and glamorous thing that everyone associates with rich people.”
Prikaži ovu nit -
The way to answer a scientific question is not gonna be the same as “do what proves to the world you’re the smartest and have mastered the trickiest techniques.”
Prikaži ovu nit -
This comes back to judgment again; if you’re trying to achieve a goal you’re gonna get judged. And you’re gonna have to think about what if anything the judgment *means* or *refers to*, not just the experience of hearing it.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Does the feedback *in fact* tell you that you should change your plan in real life? Why is the person giving that feedback? What does that tell you about the world?
Prikaži ovu nit -
Back to judging people; I believe doing bad things is common. “So and so has this common character flaw” is not an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
Prikaži ovu nit -
It doesn’t make sense to ostracize or punish the vast, vast majority of people you suspect of having character flaws.
Prikaži ovu nit -
It also doesn’t make sense to flip the bozo bit on people just because you think they have a blind spot.
Prikaži ovu nit -
I generally believe in being very very slow to conclude you have nothing to learn from someone. But also being quick to expect that almost everyone engage in behavior & thought patterns that harm themselves and others.
Prikaži ovu nit -
“I can’t believe you’re accusing this lovely person of having self-flattering biases!” Well, it would be extraordinary if she didn’t!
Prikaži ovu nit -
“Mistake vs conflict theory” is a false dichotomy. The most typical way people do harm is through subconscious motivation. There is optimization power steering towards the outcome you don’t like; but the person doesn’t have conscious control or insight into that process.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Most people are usually wrong when we guess at others’ subconscious motivations; but it’s not a conspiracy theory or paranoia to believe most people have some disturbing subconscious motivations.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Some particular examples: it’s not an extraordinary claim to say someone has racial, gender, or class biases towards siding with the higher-status groups in their society. Almost all people do to some degree.
Prikaži ovu nit -
It’s not an extraordinary claim that someone stretches or spins the truth to make themselves look good. Almost everyone does to some degree.
Prikaži ovu nit -
It’s not an extraordinary claim that most people won’t actually follow through on everything they say they care about.
Prikaži ovu nit -
It’s not an extraordinary claim that someone has done something illegal, especially someone who runs an organization. There are a lot of laws, not all regularly enforced. It’s surprisingly easy to break one unintentionally.
Prikaži ovu nit -
We get stuck in semantic debates of “is it really fair to use words to describe people that have negative connotations when the people in question aren’t *that* bad?”
Prikaži ovu nit -
Trouble is, I don’t think we *have* great words to describe problems that don’t have a judgmental or condemnatory connotation.
Prikaži ovu nit -
“Liar” is an insult and accusation; but lots of people really do stretch and spin the truth; arguing over whether it’s fair to name someone a liar is kind of a distraction from “what is this person saying, what does he believe, what do his listeners believe...
Prikaži ovu nit -
what’s actually true, and what impact does it have that these things are different?”
Prikaži ovu nit -
In general everyone underinvests in finding out what literally happens, what causes it, and what effects it has. We want to skip straight to reacting to it, especially socially and emotionally.
Prikaži ovu nit -
This is why people have processes like "Five Whys" or experimental protocols or court trials with formal rules of evidence. "Ok what literally just happened here" will not usually be done well by default.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Also, investigating "what literally just happened here" feels wasteful or "merely intellectual" if you aren't currently on board with the notion that there *is a problem worth caring about* in the first place. This is a legit disagreement! Just not usually made explicit.
Prikaži ovu nit -
"Why are people going into so much detail to investigate what went 'wrong'? Things seem fine to me! This is bullshit!" <= totally valid reason not to want to do a postmortem.
Prikaži ovu nit -
But if it's socially unacceptable to appear not to care about the problem, it's more likely that people will sabotage or derail the postmortem, or argue that it's being done wrong in some way, than own up to their real issue with it.
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.