Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Groups never admit failure

nav.al

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 370 posts

Re: Groups never admit failure

#291

Post by posix86 »

lumost wrote: post #166
AussieWog93 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's just presentations or even corporate culture in general. I sell second-hand goods online, and have found that explicitly describing any defect completely torpedoes the sales process. Having a photograph that shows it off clearly but saying nothing doesn't have that effect, though.

It’s the same bias, we’re so accustomed to sales pitches proclaiming perfection that an honest pitch sounds like the top of a disaster.

Perhaps that is cultural? We're used to faults only being addressed when they're really dire; hence, if you address any faults, your product must be in a dire state.

In reality, that is probably the case, but it's also the case that any culture always moves in this direction; the nash equilibrium is reached only if you describe your product a bit too rosy.

Re: Groups never admit failure

#292

Post by rasz »

pphysch wrote: post #181
jameslk wrote: post #56

> A group will never admit they were wrong. A group will never admit, “We made a mistake,” because a group that tries to change its mind falls apart. I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.” Just because the author can't think of an example doesn't make it true. In fact groups of people, typically businesses, admit failure all the time. And i…

One of the best contemporary counterexamples, and incidentally one of the largest organizations in the world by official membership, is the Communist Party of China. A lot of Mao Zedong's policies are viewed as mistakes by the Party , including the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Heck, Mao himself publicly admitted that the GLF was a mistake for which he takes responsibility. Yet the CPC, as an organizati…

Just yesterday I stumbled on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_furnace Doesnt sound like Mao was that hot on admitting failure.

Re: Groups never admit failure

#293

Post by skinkestek »

reissbaker wrote: post #264
skinkestek wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not withstanding lack of Israeli recognition Israel recognizes Gaza (as something else than Israel at least.) It is mostly journalists (and internet forums) that conflates Gaza with an open air prison.

I think the OP meant that Israel doesn't officially recognize Hamas rule over Gaza (because Hamas is a terrorist organization, and it also doesn't recognize Israel). But Hamas de facto rules over Gaza, and as a result they have (slightly) moderated their behavior. It's true that Israel does not consider Gaza to be Israeli territory, nor does it want to annex Gaza. And it hasn't actually occupied Gaza since Ariel Shar…

Thanks, you wrote it in a very clear way.

I think we should note though that the Egyptian blockade of Gaza seems far stricter than the Israeli one (which just seems to control that weapons and things that can easily be used to create weaponry or tunnels aren't brought in).

Re: Groups never admit failure

#294

Post by posix86 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #68

The principle claim of this essay is that groups never change their viewpoints. What's ironic is that it appears in a public environment in which groups are changing their viewpoints, often quite publicly. Many are taking extreme heat for this. Technical projects and groups are adopting codes of conduct and behaviour, changing stances on what had long been accepted. Companies are similarly changing their views on wha…

At least some of the examples might be explained by _new groups_ taking over _old brands_, no? This would result in the group seemingly change its beliefs, when in reality, it has been replaced.

Take the cathlic church. Say some people realize that the geocentrism is wrong. You have the option of either splitting off and starting something from scratch; or, if you have the option, you launch a coup, and replace the people in the cathlic church, effectively changing the group, but still seeming as the "cathlic church" from anyone outside.

Re: Groups never admit failure

#295

Post by posix86 »

HanaShiratori wrote: post #248
pvg wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we've done an okay job of correcting some historical mistakes I don't want to take anything from the generally commendable and impressive German efforts in that regard, as you say, over a period of several generations. At the same time, one has to acknowledge to get there, Germany was physically destroyed, its territory dismembered and occupied, it effectively ceased to exist as a sovereign state for a period, etc, e…

Why would anyone, especially a large group spontaneously change one of their core beliefs? Don't you need some kind of trigger event to enforce the change of mind?

Yes, but in the case of Germany, it wasn't the case that the German government and societal structures changed their beliefs; they were replaced.

Re: Groups never admit failure

#296

Post by pcthrowaway »

nathanyz wrote: post #204
jameslk wrote: post #56

> A group will never admit they were wrong. A group will never admit, “We made a mistake,” because a group that tries to change its mind falls apart. I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.” Just because the author can't think of an example doesn't make it true. In fact groups of people, typically businesses, admit failure all the time. And i…

Probably more correct to say that: "A group never admits they are wrong about the core identifying belief that defines the group" Groups admit being wrong about non-core beliefs all of the time. But of course if you look at the core belief that actually categorizes whether you are in the group or not, then it cannot admit being wrong or else it ceases to exist. Having said that, I think the author is really making a…

I'm thinking about how Germans post-WW2 generally were greatly embarrassed for their mistakes during the war. Of course, it probably helps that the former government was removed and many of the officials put on trial.

Re: Groups never admit failure

#297

Post by michealr »

Odd connection perhaps, but this book stuck with me about its framing of group changes. Though it only looks at terrorist organisations.

Essentially how the groups changes its positioning, beliefs and modus in the world over a longer time horizon. Seems to be heavily facilitated by attrition and shedding effects, which changes the units of decision making, the people, to have different personality and character profiles over time.

So how group in time X looks at a situation vs how group in time Y looks at a new situation. Excluding the immediate information on what is happening per each situation. An additional big variable to take into account is how external and internal effects have effected attrition, shedding, and new joiners between those two time periods.

The Terrorist Dilemma https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691157214/th...

Re: Groups never admit failure

#298

Post by _xnmw »

See also: design-by-committee, the Bystander effect, Mythical Man Month and other well-known pathologies of group behaviour. A sense of responsibility is only experienced by an individual, not a group. It's also the purpose of a leader -- to own up to failures of the group under their leadership, and speak on behalf of the group -- but this can only happen if the group chooses to invest such power with their leader.

Re: Groups never admit failure

#299

Post by [deleted] »

WalterBright wrote: post #148
kashyapc wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably that can be a useful insight in some specific circumstances as you describe, but it falls flat as a generalization. Allow me a snark: maybe a group of venture capitalists (many of whom call themselves "angels") might not admit a mistake. But many groups (not as grandiose as the military, though) jolly well admit and own up non-trivial mistakes. I participate in several open source projects over 13 years now.…

I have yet to make a mistake, but when I do I plan on publicly admitting it.

[deleted]

Re: Groups never admit failure

#300

Post by mritchie712 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #221
mritchie712 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the group in power decide to end it?

Yes. The final round of the Soviet Union's collapse began on December 1, 1991. That day, a Ukrainian popular referendum resulted in 91 percent of Ukraine's voters voting to affirm the independence declaration passed in August and formally secede from the Union. The secession of Ukraine, long second only to Russia in economic and political power, ended any realistic chance of Gorbachev keeping the Soviet Union togethe…

Bu it's not "the same people" in the group. The Soviet Union lasted ~69 years, plenty of time for the original group to die out.
Post reply on HN