“Evil” as a quality of humans is only useful for creating simplistic narratives. It has no predictive value and a negative understanding value. You’re basically trying to write the script of the movie about the apocalypse
-
-
-
It’s convenient shorthand for consensus net negative potentiality or something
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not necessarily. Everybody within a system may acknowledge it is evil without accepting any charge of Complicity (“I’m one of the good people, it’s those people in sales who make it evil”)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are you subtweeting about Facebook?

-
Nope
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
OK - emergent evil may be my new favorite idea. I’ve generally thought about the banality of evil as enough but emergent behavior seems like a better construct
-
I think they’re different though. A system might have neither, either, or both.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How do you compute the evil synergy factor in an organization?
-
I leave that as a homework exercise
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
That’s a proper insight; although we usually associate evil with intent as well as outcomes. Unless this emergent evil is self aware, and using that awareness to amplify evil, we can and should call it unintended consequences.
-
Of course, if intent is an illusion; a by-product in a deterministic universe, then unintended consequences can I suppose be proper evil. Interestingly, determinism shows up (covertly) in the “just following orders” defense against war crimes. “These events were bigger than me”
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.