What about the whole NLP thing that NEGATIVE injunctions are ignored by the unconscious/subconscious brain.
In other words, this directive really serves to state "Be Evil" at the deepest level of our core consciousness?
Paul Buchheit:"Don't Be Evil"
21–26 of 26 posts
Re: Paul Buchheit:"Don't Be Evil"
#22What about the whole NLP thing that NEGATIVE injunctions are ignored by the unconscious/subconscious brain. In other words, this directive really serves to state "Be Evil" at the deepest level of our core consciousness?
ie because of this phrase, Google has become associated with (the word) "Evil" in a way few others throughout history have (ie with the possible exception of Hitler et al)
Re: Paul Buchheit:"Don't Be Evil"
#23What about the whole NLP thing that NEGATIVE injunctions are ignored by the unconscious/subconscious brain. In other words, this directive really serves to state "Be Evil" at the deepest level of our core consciousness?
ie because of this phrase, Google has become associated with (the word) "Evil" in a way few others throughout history have (ie with the possible exception of Hitler et al)
thats hilarious
edit: and probably not correct. The phrase has been thought about so much and repeated so often that I would think the negative would no longer be ignored, although on the first read it may have an affect of a Be Evil command. I never did get around to reading nlp books.
Re: Paul Buchheit:"Don't Be Evil"
#24Hi Paul. Since you are the person at Google who came up with the "Don't Be Evil" motto, could you please explain what that means? I am genuinely curious and have no intention of badgering you about this. Thank you.
I'm not sure if this is right or not, but in philosophy class, I was taught that Google's motto was a manifestation of negative consequentialism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism#Negative_consequentialism Basically, the ethical decision is that which avoids a negative outcome. The professor mentioned a number of interesting implications of strict negative consequentialism. The following actions would be…
'... I was taught that Google's motto was a manifestation of negative consequentialism ...'
Sam thats too much thinking for me (grin).
Are we missing the point of the quote? The best example I've found why pb added 'dont be evil' to the list, was a jab at "their competitors". Pb suspected ( unsubstantiated ) them of "selling search results and mixing them in with real ones" (Founders at Work, Paul Buchheit, p170). Commercial gain through deception.
It was after all meant to be a (serious) joke. Especially Amit Patel, who pb quotes as writing 'dont be evil' on whiteboards, 'all over the building'.
Re: Paul Buchheit:"Don't Be Evil"
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Popup ads, spam, integrating paid results with search results, and spyware/adware were the big problems during the dot com crash, when ethics went out the window, and the main community for nerds (slashdot) really liked to call companies evil for their behavior way before digg or redit existed. Once Google made that a slogan, Google was mentioned all the time in such threads for the slogan, and not just because they…
"If they teach otherwise in business school, they're making things up." This is an understandable belief given all the publicity the bad companies get. But what about the companies that do well and actually act in a moral way? There must be many of those as well, but not nearly as exciting to report on. Here's a rising bank that makes a very large point of their moral approach to running their business: http://www.bb…
There are two fundamental problems here.
One is that the customer can't easily discern between a good company and an evil company without doing business with them. Once they hit a certain size and have a large enough customer base, reputation helps.
But companies that act in their own short-term interests without regard to integrity are likely to out-compete companies that try to behave ethically -- so all other things being equal, if a large company doesn't make a fuss about ethics and integrity, odds are it's evil.
The ethical company has the long-term advantage, but the unethical company has the short-term advantage. If the unethical company can use the short-term advantage to its benefit, it can build up enough of a business that it's hard to topple despite being unethical.
The second point is that the larger the company, the more its inherent trend towards self-serving (probably evil) behavior. Bureaucracies are inhuman, because the responsibility for the evil act or evil policy can always be passed on elsewhere or euphemized away, and a large number of problems turns into a statistic. One person screwed over by the company is a real problem; ten thousand screwed over by the company justifies the budget for the complaints department.
It takes a very principled, very public stand to avoid both of these problems.
Re: Paul Buchheit:"Don't Be Evil"
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
ie because of this phrase, Google has become associated with (the word) "Evil" in a way few others throughout history have (ie with the possible exception of Hitler et al)
thats hilarious edit: and probably not correct. The phrase has been thought about so much and repeated so often that I would think the negative would no longer be ignored, although on the first read it may have an affect of a Be Evil command. I never did get around to reading nlp books.
Is there a way to measure (via Google or some other publicly accesible technology) how close two terms are related, in the public discourse and on the Internet? (I'm sure there's some stupid easy way to do this, but I forget what the best way is.)