201–210 of 370 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideology isn't the tangent here, dang, it's the core. Visit the blog if you're unclear on that. The problem, dear Brutus^Wdang, lies not in the comments, but the post.
We don't need a tedious flamewar about predictable ideological talking points, regardless of what's in an article.
If you're going to remove something, start with the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The A-10 is truly remarkable as are the drones. Meanwhile the F35 is an overpriced hangar queen that should never have been built (the F22 is a solid stealth plane). https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/10/why-nothing-even-the-air... Meanwhile corporates are groups and when they fail we call it creative destruction in Schumpeter's words or nowadays disruption.
> The A-10 is truly remarkable as are the drones. Meanwhile the F35 is an overpriced hangar queen that should never have been built (the F22 is a solid stealth plane). No.
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…
> The principle claim of this essay is that groups never change their viewpoints. I understood that the principle claim is that groups never admit publicly that they were wrong. Maybe in reading to much into it, but it is the interpretation I've got. They can, and actually do change, but it is always a "path of victory". And in the few cases that they admit they were wrong is to gain an advantage or when they are for…
It could be rewritten to say what you're noting. That would be an entirely different essay, however, and not what was submitted here.
Mind: I'd also find more agreement with that view. It is not, however, the one that was presented.
> 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…
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 silly point to say that a group defined by a core belief CANNOT admit that its core belief is wrong. Kind of obvious when expanded to its more verbose form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the essay is strongly written — never is a strong word — but it resonated with me because of a personal experience. In that experience part of the problem was that those who disagreed with the group were purged out of the group one way or another, either because they chose to exit out of disgust or because they were driven away, or something in between. So there was a "survivorship bias" in the group, where "…
In extreme cases you have evaporative heating of groups where after some major setback all the more moderate members leave and the remainder are on average more attached to the group and more fanatical. This is pretty common to see when religious cults have prophesies that fail to pan out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In extreme cases you have evaporative heating of groups where after some major setback all the more moderate members leave and the remainder are on average more attached to the group and more fanatical. This is pretty common to see when religious cults have prophesies that fail to pan out.
The WSJ had a piece many years ago about this happening to the Muslim Brotherhood as the moderate members, who were more visible and accessible, were arrested forcing the group to become more fundamentalist. Found that interesting. "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems..." I never did validate if that claim about the Muslim Brotherhood stood the test of time but I found the thing interesting in the m…
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.” Now that is a useful insight. It's a big problem for voluntary associations. Companies can sometimes change their culture, but it usually requires replacin…
people have a hard time realizing when the technology they've spent their lives learning and perfecting is no longer applicable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The A-10 is truly remarkable as are the drones. Meanwhile the F35 is an overpriced hangar queen that should never have been built (the F22 is a solid stealth plane). https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/10/why-nothing-even-the-air... Meanwhile corporates are groups and when they fail we call it creative destruction in Schumpeter's words or nowadays disruption.
> The A-10 is truly remarkable as are the drones. Meanwhile the F35 is an overpriced hangar queen that should never have been built (the F22 is a solid stealth plane). No.
It’s obvious that there are no groups without members. But what’s less obvious is that there are no members without a group — because what would you be a member of?
So there’s this very complicated moment of a group coming together, where enough individuals, for whatever reason, sort of agree that something worthwhile is happening, and the decision they make at that moment is “This is good and must be protected.” And at that moment, even if it’s subconscious, you start getting group effects.
> 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.” What would this look like? 100% of members all announcing it at the same time? A simple majority? Just a single leader, or board? Because if it’s the lea…
Put another way: “We” didn’t think anything. There is no such thing as a group changing its mind because a group doesn’t have a mind. Each member thought something, probably something slightly different even when they largely agreed, and very often they completely disagreed with one another. The Naval and Balaji type folks often seem tricked into thinking that organizations are actually atomic entities simply because…
I mean yeah, but I don't think that's what the author meant. They seem to be saying that groups don't admit failure, not that admitting failure is a definitional impossibility. It's like going, "jellyfish NEVER breastfeed their babies."