Groups never admit failure
nav.al
nav.al
Now that is a useful insight.
It's a big problem for voluntary associations. Companies can sometimes change their culture, but it usually requires replacing the CEO.
This has come up a few times in military history. "L'audace, toujours l'audace" was a WWI French slogan. It took a huge number of casualties before high command got it that charging into machine guns does not work. Courage does not help. In WWII, a big change was discovering that battleships are not useful once the enemy has torpedo bombers. The resistance of the battleship admirals was overcome by Congress, not the Navy. Congress ordered that the captains of aircraft carriers must be qualified to fly aircraft. Sidelining the "Gun Club" took major political effort.
Now, the US military is struggling with the "Fighter Mafia", which tends to run the USAF despite the ascendancy of drones and the usefulness of the A-10.
Also, the A-10 is one heck of a plane and always my favorite. Largest caliber nose cannon and the ability to limp back to base on one engine and one rudder is so freaking cool. There is a National Guard base nearby and it is so cool watching them do flybys on the small mountains.
I'm near a different A-10 base. I've noted that they've stepped up training flights during the last two weeks. I'm wondering if it's related to the Russian build up on the Ukrainian frontier. Have you noticed more flights?
Well, there was a nice posting here (hopefully someone will find it) about WWI and that 1) stasis was effectively inevitable and 2) you do have to charge the enemy occasionally or you can't maintain your stasis (it prevents them from moving their artillery forward).
Edit: Thank you, malcomwhite. https://acoup.blog/2021/09/17/collections-no-mans-land-part-...
https://acoup.blog/2021/09/17/collections-no-mans-land-part-...
The problem, as identified in the post, is that although your charge usually succeeds, you end up taking ground that your pre-charge offensive barrage has made impossible to hold. And then you lose that ground.
If this were not true, no one would setup defences.
OK, we've established that you're eager to declaim on a subject you never actually bothered learning anything about:
>> Consider: at the Somme (1916), the British and French attacked and the Germans defended; the allies took 620,000 losses, inflicted 445,000 (a ratio of about 4:3 favoring the defender) and got basically nowhere.
>> At Verdun (also 1916), the Germans attacked and the French defended; the Germans took 355,000 losses to the French’s 400,000 (a ratio of 7:8 favoring the attacker) and got basically nowhere.
>> Over the whole of the German Spring Offensives (1918), the Germans took 688,341 casualties and inflicted 863,374 (a ratio of about 3:4, again favoring the attacker), knocked huge salients in the allied lines, didn’t break through and thereby lost the war.
>> I think here it is worth really noting how high the defender’s casualties are in these battles; I keep noting this but I want to stress: defenders suffered high casualties in trench warfare. Being on the defensive operationally did not save you any more than being tactically on the defensive did. You were just as likely to be killed in your trench by an enemy shell or grenade as you were on the offense machine-gunned trying to cross no man’s land. If the latter holds a larger place in the Anglophone consciousness (e.g. 1917 and Gallipoli) that has more to do with the British and Commonwealth forces being more often on the attack than the defense, not on the casualty implications of attacking or defending.
Compare the quote attributed to Ho Chi Minh:
You will kill ten of us, we will kill one of you, but in the end, you will tire of it first.
He won and we lost. It's not because we took more casualties.
I would expect an adage about this to already exist – if it doesn't, I'm claiming it. :)
He's talking more about religious and political movements than companies but, with the way many companies today want people to believe in their mission, there are strong parallels.
Yes, and also the furtherance of the careers of the top people.
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
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 "surviving" sort of meant staying with the group.
It's interesting to think about how this applies to your WWI examples, where the people in the position of admitting mistake are still alive, and there's a very literal survivorship bias with regard to group membership.
Anyway, when you have an entity that can change in composition, it affects what is involved in admitting to mistakes, because the people making the mistakes might be different from those who would admit to them.
My partner was and is a person who is never wrong, never fails, never makes a mistake - it’s always someone else who stymied his ambitions, or circumstance, or just bad luck. Never an error.
I left, after a decade. It was partly of my own volition, but the moment I voiced the possibility he, and our investor, couldn’t show me the door quickly enough.
Now, here’s the rub.
I’ve been gone for nearly six years. In that time their revenue has fallen by 80%, their core product has been axed, and I am still the scapegoat.
Even when they ultimately fail completely, which they will, and soon, as none of the issues I identified have been addressed, I am certain that they will go down crying “damn you, madaxe_again”.
Reality, commercial or not, is purely a matter of perception.
Until reality is inescapable.
So in the longterm all someone does is burn leadership capital trying to pretend they're perfect. This isn't a viable strategy for succeeding in your career.
I empathize that you’ve lost your business to this. I sounded like you would instill an awesome culture where people recognize mistakes…
Modern approach to civil conflict. Maybe there should be a focus-group that teaches employees to acknowledge ("to own", as they preach) their mistakes?
I feel you, usually I am one of the people to raise those issues. Now I am trying a different approach, being very careful how I voice that stuff, and making sure I do it indirectly wherever possible in those rare occasions I do. The rest of the time, I just try to keep my mouth shut.
Kudos so for sticking around for 10 years.
Hindsight, however, is everything - most of the engineering team left in my wake, and all that remains is a hollowed out core of sycophantic middle management. They went from an improbable 0% client churn to a revolving door of unhappy customers.
Truly, it was a shame - and remains so - for my sake, however, my departure was the best thing I could have done, as it saved what precious threads of sanity I had remaining. I still hope for the sake of the once-friend I started the business with that he yet learns something.
How does it go? For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: 'It might have been!'.
Governments/media/academics: we will solve the problem by doing X.
Sceptics: that won't work / isn't working / hasn't worked.
Governments/media/academics: it isn't working because of the unbelievers.
I never did validate if that claim about the Muslim Brotherhood stood the test of time but I found the thing interesting in the moment.
This points in the direction of another commenter who mentioned that it's a matter of incentives. Yes, many groups are seemingly defined by their particular disposition on certain issues. But toss some strong incentives into the mix and some of those groups turn out to not be quite as intransigent as thought. Although the Hamas and PLO duo shows the limits to that--Hamas responded to incentive, but definitely not as strongly as the PLO did, perhaps precisely because the PLO holds the more moderate ground, and Hamas as a group distinguishes itself from the PLO in that way. I'd wager that if you could magically extinguish the PLO, then it's likely Hamas would either become more moderate or split in order to fill that vacuum.
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.
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 Sharon as PM ordered the IDF to unilaterally withdraw, although Israel and Egypt do maintain a shared blockade of Gaza.
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).
Just to be clear, this means items like food, paper and any and all electronics.
Israel maintains a strict calorie limitation on Gaza, because Hamas turns any excess into rockets. Of course, this doesn't actually deter Hamas that much, because they care about shooting at Israel more than they care about the health of the population, and so a huge portion of the population of Gaza is chronically malnourished.
You'll find that if you look behind Hamas approved sources (not Israeli propaganda, but local sources in Gaza) you might get a mlre nuanced view.
> and so a huge portion of the population of Gaza is chronically malnourished.
The problem in Gaza does not seem to be the supply of food but the distribution. Hamas is notoriously corrupt and evil as written about in length by their own. To them I guess it is even beneficial if their people us malnourished when journalists and UN officials arrive.
Besides: Hamas needs only to start behave civilized, start imprisoning the violent ones instead of sending grants to martyrs and you will probably find Israelis a lot more cooperative vs now when they openly say they want to destroy Israel.
There is a reason these walls etc exist now and that is because when I was younger, reading about buses getting bombed or civilians machine gunned in Israel was totally unsurprising.
From 2007: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooling_(atomic_ph...
Initially they were attracting quite a diverse bunch, which is good imo, as political parties should represent swathes of the population as large as possible, but as the time progressed and as the disillusions started to show up their ranks got thinner and the only people left were the "more fanatical" ones, as you well put it. Unfortunately doing politics with "fanatical" people is very unproductive and border-line dangerous for the fabric of society.
Not sure if there's a way out of situations like these.
I struggle to hear someone use "never" and other absolutist language—as the author does—and imagine they are likely to admit a mistake as well. I think it can depend on how certain a group is, or as you mention, how the certain ones drive the less certain ones out of the group. I can imagine if there are people in a group who say "always" "never" "the best" "the worst" a lot, then yes, the more doubtful ones may leave and the group may become even more convicted in their rightness.
However, I don't think every group follows that path, possibly not having such people clinging to certainty or even if they do, the ones with more humility working together to downgrade the hubris.
Secondly, if you can't tell, I can feel quite frustrated when people speak with such certainty, and I'm grateful and impressed that you seemed able to look past that in the author's writing.
Atomic Orbitals, Visualized Dynamically - https://youtu.be/BPkcDWLBsrI?t=412
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_Mafia
They were profoundly resistant to reality (such as sustained "unsustainable" loss rates in un-escorted daytime bomber attacks on Germany), or even ideological compromises (such as long-range fighter escorts for those bombers)...up to the point where the en-mass sacking of mafia members, or massive "de-emphasis" of their branch of the armed forces were clear and present dangers.
So, obviously, the UK airforce proposed that a massive bombing campaign would clearly break the German civilian spirit and force Germany to sue for peace.
It's worth remembering that at this time precision munitions didn't exist. Attempting to bomb a factory was largely worthless, especially at night and under enemy fire. It was really just about dropping as many bombs as possible over a wide area and hoping that somehow, some of them would get kinda near the actual targets. The fact that most wouldn't was taken for granted.
I participate in several open source projects over 13 years now. And as jancsika mentions in this thread, various times I've seen mature groups of contributors and maintainers admit, and articulate, really difficult mistakes in public. Granted, these are small groups ranging from six to twenty-ish. Still, it takes courage and wisdom to do it gracefully.
That's where I think the insight cleanly falls apart and yet holds up pretty well for the vast majority of situations. Rarely are groups actually positively incentivized to admit failure, and therefore they do not, as a cohesive unit, actually admit failure as there's a greater incentive not to, barring force.
The more polarizing, non falsifiable the beliefs of the group, the harder the change.
For some carefully chosen definition of mistake.
And do it right here on HN. Just the other day a member of the Python core team said the Python2 to Python3 transition was be a never to be repeated mistake.
> Granted, these are small groups ranging from six to twenty-ish.
And big groups do it too, apparently. In community groups I'm in saying things like "we tried this but it didn't work" is a regular occurrence. They make for entertaining, self depreciating war stories, letting newbies know things aren't judged too harshly around here.
In fact it happens so often, I wondering if all the posts here saying "of yes - that's right" is some sort of group confirmation bias at work. I wonder if it will be self correcting - and the group later come to the conclusion it was wrong.
Indeed; all this is old news for anyone who has worked in open source communities for a decent chunk of time (say, six years at least). It's the "angels" that are disconnected from real world that tend to stretch a small observation into a sweeping generalization, in the name of "insight". The cynic in me says, "they're doing it for the clicks and brand-building."
the fighter mafia basically wanted more maneuverability, cheaper planes and CAS than interdiction bombing. A-10 is all of those except light.
they were vehemently opposed to optimizing planes for beyond visual range (BVR) combat like by improving sensors or stealth because they considered it "a fantasy."
problem is missiles fired 100 miles away don't care what you consider fantastical.
the A-10 is actually a giant hunk of junk outside of COIN operations. it has no stealth, it's slow and its gun is useless against modern armor. against terrorists in flipflops with AKs it can be useful but that's only because they don't have any sort of AA. even stingers are a huge problem. and in an uncontested airspace you may as well bring in a plane with even more firepower and loiter time like an ac-130.
so basically the a-10 in this day and age is a solution in search of a problem. it's big, slow, heavy and would be shot out of the sky in a peer confrontation before you could even blink. its gun is useless against modern tanks and an f-35 can carry a similar amount of munitions.
Yeah, maybe a low flying AC-130 hits the same niche, but we only about twenty or so AC-130s versus almost 300 A-10s in active service.
Its really a popularity problem in that there is a doctrine of "we need something survivable in BVR and active ADA" but we don't like talking about that situation as much as pew-pew A-10s are cool and we always plan to fight the last war where there was no BVR or ADA threat (not after the first few days...)
Inevitably we will someday go up against an opponent that is willing to take BVR RoE risks and is capable and willing to do ADA (anti-aircraft guns and missiles). At that point the drones and A-10s are simply out of the fight, in fact the entire Air Force is out of the fight until either another procurement cycle or hope that the ground Army, despite having no air support at all, somehow knocks out the opfor so our undefended planes can fly again.
That's why we have a doctrine, however uncool to talk about, of keeping BVR-proof and ADA-proof weapons systems around, there is a situation where they're quite useful.
Really its not even ADA-proof, its more generically "capable of operating in an environment where we do not already have total utter complete air supremacy".
There is a logistical theory that air supremacy is so expensive that nobody but the USA can sustain it, although it goes guarantee huge USA losses until supremacy is lost, so that's not really politically viable. "They're going to wipe our ground forces out by air and there's nothing we can do about it until they run out of armament" is something that's supposed to happen to other nations, not the US, so its a very hard sell politically.
ADA = Air Defence Artillery (anti-aircraft weapons).
I am not trolling - just asking as it does seem that all the advantages are with cheap missiles hunting expensive planes (a very similar situation to naval warfare I believe)
I think I am asking for a good primer on modern warfare ... I suspect it is a contentious subject.
If those 5th-generation fighters are able to successfully suppress the air defenses then A-10s and other obsolete fighters can come in later for strike and air support missions. But against an intact IADS they would take extremely high casualties.
Gun anti-air(AA) is basically useless against jets at this point (they fly too high and fast). For missiles, you can't really evade them if you're in their kill zone (they can accelerate way faster and turn way tighter than a human can survive). Your hope to survive a missile is to either not be "seen" in the first place (whether that's radar, or at somewhat less far distances IR), or to be far enough away that you can run away from the missile until it runs out of energy (aka don't be in it's kill zone and have enough speed/energy to flee. Speed is energy is life in air combat, turning hasn't really mattered since the 60s and dogfighting is a meme since turning kills your energy which makes you even more susceptible to missiles).
Ground based AA has big problems with actually seeing planes from far enough away at this point due to the horizon, and the ability of planes to shoot anti-radar and/or loitering munitions from over the horizon against ground based AA. Plane based AA is obviously better due to being higher so the horizon is pushed further out, and not having to be immobile (think cruise missile saturation attack against a ground based AA site), but if you have inferior planes or munitions (eg. Russia vs US/NATO), then investing more heavily into ground based AA makes sense as you'd never be able to reliably have air superiority to protect your ground troops if you relied on plane based AA.
Stealth (low observability is a better term) plays a huge role at essentially reducing a radar's effective range (iirc estimates I've seen are that the F-35's stealth reduces the S400's effective range from ~140km against regular jets to ~35km against an F-35).
This has all ignored the datalink/networking going on between all these different systems to eg. extend radar coverage, or how afaik SAMs are usually run in "passive mode" and are constantly relocating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loitering_munition#Initial_rol... is a good primer on how planes vs ground based AA can actually be planes with "cheap" missiles hunting SAMs). Also, in a peer/near peer conflict A-10s wouldn't be used even after achieving air superiority and destroying all the SAM sites, because they're too vulnerable to even cheap manpads or gun AA and can only be flown in areas with 0 anti air threat (which is why the airforce wants to drop them and get Super Tucanos that can do the same job of dropping a laser guided bomb at ~1/10 the flight cost).
Its unlikely either side will throw 100% of its air assets into the mix to achieve complete dominance, so there is always some planes / batteries around, and we end up with "we dominate that area, you dominate this". At that point, no-one has air dominance, and there is a "no mans land" over which some aircraft might be yours, or theirs, but you have to go through that part.
As soon as we have that situation, there will be discussions on "break out" - land forces getting through the contested area, but when you do, guess what, you have broken into the are where their air is dominant.
It seems you either have air dominance, or you fight in the air till you do have. But committing all air assets to do that risks losing them all, so stalemate seems inevitable...
Joke was that Red Baron style wood and cloths bi-planes would be an alternative once the top notch hardware is expended. Easy to build, easy to maintain and pilot training is faster and cheaper as well.
Stealth vs. stealth -> most likely to end in a dog fight, fighters wont be able to engage each other at longer distances
Stealth vs. conventional -> most likely stealth gets a shot from BVR on the conventional aircraft, AVACS and the conventional fighter running under EMCOn change that, as soon as the stealth fighters fired the first shots, any surviving conventional fighters will engage again in dog fights
Conventional vs. conventional -> pretty much the same as above, only that both sides will get some shots before distances are closed
If anything, I understood dog fights will become again more prevalent due to stealth.
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.
No.
> The billion-dollar question here is really whether or not developing another new fighter could result in an overall reduction in cost without creating a reduction in capability.
Since this is HN your bullcrap-meter should be going off here just as if somebody told you throwing away the the Linux kernel and rewriting it in Rust would improve performance, while reducing the number of CVEs - oh and this whole business would only take a year or two while maintaining ABI compatibility with existing packages.
From what I read, the F-22 is the hangar queen. F-35 can do several supersonic missions per day and is not afraid of rain. It is overpriced, though.
Duuuuude, the Fighter Mafia was active in like the '60s and '70s, and some of its members were involved in the design of the A-10 (in line with their strong advocacy against multirole aircraft). Do you have any evidence that current USAF strategic policy is dictated by the fighter community? Fighter pilots have lamented the loss of "l'audace" for decades, but despite their bravado I don't think any of them really believe that they deserve absolute strategic primacy.
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-reaper-drone-retir...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/12/spacex-prepares-for-air-forc...
Also, you don't even have to shoot them, there is jamming
That was John Boyd, the fighter jock's fighter jock. He pushed for both the F-16, for air-to-air combat, and the A-10, for after the F-16 has cleared the sky.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think we should discontinue it, because man we do a lot of oppression of teenagers with AK-47s in the last 50 years. Really the US Military should have an "occupation and oppression" service branch if they were honest, with the counter insurgency, A-10s, helicopters, urban warfare infantry, snipers, drones, etc. It could be equipment that is 10 years old, or simply very cheap versions of more expensive stuff used by the branches that presumably exist to fight a peer state.
This post was brought to you in the spirit of "the war nerd".
But they'd never be that honest.
The USMC is planned to become that, no? No tanks or artillery anymore and very few jets, but instead lots of helos and drones and mortars and MRAP cars and landing equipment for suppressing insurgents anywhere in the world.
(Not even kidding...)
But it isn’t like Hitler was waving a white flag and being contrite. I can’t say he was wrong that death was the easy way out with the situation that he had made.
In my experience, the more negative the communication/power style, the more all or nothing the internal politics of the organization tend to be, and the less likely ‘gentle’ change can happen.
Admitting an error in a leader even in most considered positive medium to large organizations is considered a complete failure requiring their removal. At the nation state level, very few countries let a national leader even bow out without the next in line trying to throw them in jail or execute them.
Good luck having a productive shift in policy in that case instead of ‘we WILL make it work’ - including lining people against the wall if they don’t agree.
This is what most nonprofits, and a surprisingly large number of businesses, are like: https://seliger.com/2012/03/25/why-fund-organizations-throug.... Some nonprofits mistakenly believe that grant evaluations are about evaluating the efficacy of the program, rather than declaring victory: https://seliger.com/2013/06/02/with-charity-for-all-ken-ster...
When stakeholders expect victory to look rosy, and instead it looks balanced then they'll believe something went wrong.
Once I realized that good pitches were about emotions, I started getting much better results.
Having a photograph that shows it off clearly but saying nothing doesn't have that effect, though.
The more I learn about optimising the business for revenue, the more I come to understand that consumer-focused retail is essentially a socially acceptable form of prostitution.
We don't exist to solve a problem in peoples' lives, but to satisfy primal urges, indulge fantasies and make people feel powerful/special. The actual product you take home is just a souvenir.
Going back to GP's comment, I wouldn't be surprised if many corporate jobs could be looked at this way too.
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.
I strongly suspect this was a US-based foundation. That behavior is not exclusive to the USA, but much, much more predominant here. It's almost a stereotype of US (individual and corporate) behavior.
There are a lot of parasitic organisations that provide shitty expensive advice/consultancy services to crappy charities. A sort of web of symbiotic parasites, helping charities to provide no value. It is no surprise that crappy charities can spend a ton of money on “organisational effectiveness” that only return negative value overall.
Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.
"The Red Queen"
https://www.givewell.org/about/our-mistakes
It's beautiful to see such behavior <3
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 it doesn't follow that this causes a "schism"
Isn't Y-Combinator all about failing fast and pivots? Funny to see such a silly notion here of all places.
EDIT: Sorry, I'm rate-limited here. Yes, I meant that their current valuation is $1+ billion. They abandoned the path that YC suggested - no success down that road - to get here.
I disagree.
When I see the author's exaggeration and overconfidence, coupled with a lack of examples, I stop reading. It reminds me of driving by a paper mill. Memorable, yes, in the wrong sort of way. I'll remember to avoid it in the future.
I don't dig the writing. I find it uninteresting and unpersuasive. An author does not have to exaggerate to be interesting. Even a dry scientific article can punch you in the face. Isn't that interesting? Perhaps impact and exaggeration are inversely related. Perhaps become exaggeration is easy and overused.
There is a time and place for exaggeration, sure. However, a skilled writer has many varied tools: metaphor, details, humor, and much more.
There isn't one formula to good writing, certainly, but what I'm seeing here misses the mark.
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 organization of millions of individuals, didn't implode and remains as formidable as ever.
There are a lot of reasons for this, not least China having 5000 years experience with running civilization-scale groups.
My impression, from talking to modern Chinese people, is that the Cultural Revolution is viewed as a mistake, and the Great Leap Forward is not. The Great Leap Forward is viewed as having suffered from inclement weather.
I tend to suspect that this reflects current party orthodoxy.
> There are a lot of reasons for this, not least China having 5000 years experience with running civilization-scale groups.
That would make the comparison groups Egypt, Iraq, and Iran. Plus a much weaker argument for Pakistan.
How formidable are those governments, compared to the government of China?
> I have committed two crimes, one of which is calling for 10,700,000 tons of steel and the mass smelting of steel. If you agreed with this, you should share some of the blame. But since I was the inventor of burial puppets, I cannot pass on the blame: the main responsibility is mine.
Read the whole thing for a little treat at the end.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-work...
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.
Ironically it's often due to a lack of seeing feedback, a mechanism of the same kind the author criticizes groups of! Or perhaps cognitive biases.
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 what types of behaviour are considered acceptable amongst both staff and leadership.
The high court of the United States just heard a case in which it seems highly likely that it will substantially change its collective mind over a decision it had made some 50 years ago.
The two major political parties of the United States have, over the course of some 60 or so years, virtually completely changed their respective stances on racial equality and civil rights. Not a fast change, but a profound one.
The Catholic Church has reversed itself on earlier condemnations and beliefs, notably of heliocentrism and the conviction of Galileo.
Scientific bodies and disciplines change their mind, preferably based on evidence, all the time. It's what science is. A remarkable case was the development of the theory of plate tectonics from a radical fringe concept to the central organising principle of geology, from 1915 to 1965.
We're in the midst of an onging attempt to change collective understanding, and response to the overwhelmingly evident fact of anthropogenic global warming as a consequence of fossil fuel use.
Reputable news and media organisations report on their own errors and omissions on an ongoing basis.
The most durable institutions in the world are not commercial entities (the five-year failure rate of new enterprises is about 50%). Rather, they are not-for-profit service organisations and institutions, typically schools. The oldest universities date back over 1,000 years, and there are primary schools dating to before the year 1.
And the field of economics has been in the process of admitting the failure of free-market absolutism, or even of free markets as anything other than a special case, for over 150 years.
Groups are resistant to change, yes, but they are not absolutely incapable of it.
Arguing against facts is quite easy where one doesn't bother to consult them.
I feel most of the changes you mentioned saw a churn in the members of the groups themselves.
Also, the article mentions changes can happen but not without a schism, which I feel most of your examples demonstrate that a schism is happening.
But nobody changed their minds or admitted a mistake: people just died or retired and were replaced by different people who thought differently.
The content of the post makes it obvious that it's discussing the actions and decisions of groups over much shorter periods of time: i.e., within a single human lifetime, and actually within quite a small portion of a lifetime, because it's talking about outcomes of funded projects and how they're viewed.
That's some sinful pride right there.
Actually the principal claim is that "a group will never admit they were wrong." I think I agree with both claims.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=7,39&qsp=2&q...
Changing a change of mind is a subset of admitting error. Naval's claim is an absolute ("never"), and a single counterexample serves as a sufficient disproof.
I've provided multiple.
Tobacco, oil, asbestos, lead, pharmaceutical (e.g., Sacklers), coal, gaming, alcohol, dioxins, plastics generally, advertising, adtech, sugar, firearms, trans-fats. That whole slave-trade thing.
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 forced to: To appear humble, to pivot to a trending opinion before the "other side" do (and usually after a huge pressure).
We have several examples of this: Microsoft with Linux (now Linux is trendy, they want to embrace the developers that code on Mac, and so on), Germany after WWII (decided by the allies in the Postdam conference), or any political party that ever existed.
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.
Your comment is typical example of arguing over completely different point and then claim as counterexample to original argument.
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.
The Samurai Class said: "This system is not good, and look over there, battleships from Western Nations are on our shore. Time to modernize and industrialize, and time to retire the Samurai system".
Of course, the other half of the Samurai argued otherwise and thus the civil war started. Turns out that the side that chose guns and industrialization won.
----------
Arguably, every revolution and civil war was basically a group deciding that the old way was bad and that some new way was better. But the Meiji Restoration is perhaps the most striking example in the past 200 years.
Yes, the "schism" happened as per the blogpost. But the schism was fixed and Japan was reunited, fighting as a united front in the Russo-Japanese war... proving that Japan had in fact become a modern world power.
Some of the Samurai remained pro-Shogunate (the old system of power). The others were pro-Imperialists (Emperor Meiji, Prime Ministers, Bi-cameral house, etc. etc., and other such modernizations).
It was the group that tried to stay on the old Shogunate / Samurai system that lost. In part, because the pro-Imperialists were some of the most powerful samurai of Japan (such as Ito: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%C5%8D_Hirobumi).
In the end, people largely acknowledge the forward thinking of Japan's samurai class. The samurai largely convinced other samurai (through the old system of war / killing each other), that the new Imperial system was better. Turns out that Samurai were still good at fighting, even if they were fighting to remove themselves from power.
------
This is a group that fully acknowledged the inefficiency of the 1600s-era system of government and Feudal territories lorded over by Samurai / Noble warriors.
The pro-imperialist Samurai themselves led the revolution to create a new system of government, industrialization, and open up trade with the world. Yes, even if it meant ending the Samurai powers of old.
> If you want to change the world to a better place, the best way to do it is a for-profit because for-profits have to take feedback from reality. Ironically, for-profit entities are more sustainable than non-profit entities. They’re self-sustainable. You’re not out there with a begging bowl all the time.
Tech, finance, and the automotive industry are three great examples of for-profit industries that are almost always insulated from feedback from reality and are constantly "out there with a begging bowl."
Uber and WeWork are outliers in that they provide what's clearly a useful and novel service, but it's still unclear how profitable they can be.
And with all three what's missing is competition.
When you get big enough competition stops existing and quality stops mattering for a very long time. You can only fail because you're awful at what you do when you're small. Get big enough and you can just buy out anybody better than you.
Then it continues with a howler about the supposed "sustainability" of for-profit enterprise. The engine behind the success of marketplace capitalism is creative destruction! In a healthy marketplace for-profit entities must constantly compete to stay alive, and those that can't adapt die because they are not sustainable.
There's something to the idea that groups are reluctant to change course, but we aren't learning anything about it from this article, which chose to go down the path of ideological screed.
Being German I would like to think that while there's always opportunity to be more introspective about your history over the last few generations we've done an okay job of correcting some historical mistakes, and that's a pretty decently sized group.
>If you want to change the world to a better place, the best way to do it is a for-profit
I can only assume that if we'd turned the country into an LLC we'd be even more on the cutting edge of error correcting today. I feel like this post is what happens if you burn every history book and instead shove a diet of a16z podcasts and silicon valley serial entrepreneur biographies through GPT-3
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, etc. It's not much of an example of a group spontaneously deciding they'd got it wrong.
The general idea being that future peoples need to learn from the mistakes of the past.
I was asking who spontaneously changes their mind without any event that would trigger such a change? If I believe in something, why would I have any motivation to change it if everything is running well / as planned?
The idea that Germany was in any way the single country responsible for WWI is absolutely ridiculous.
The revolution in Bavaria would still happened. And still irk right wing. The democracy would still be rejected and Weimar Republic would still be one massive mess.
Hitler did not gained power just because of social issues.
(And also, less importantly, had Germany won the WWI, they had plans to ask other countries for large reparations. It is not like those were something unheard of at that time.)
How would Germans be able to tell other Europeans what they need to do in which way if they didn't have the moral high ground of Vergangenheitsbewältigung?
While this might not be true for a big chunk of the German population (which is truly horrified by and sorry for the harm their nation caused), it is certainly part of the reson this has been successfully accepted.
As someone living in Germany as well, Germans love to tell others how things are done. This is only possible if you have the moral high ground. Musterschüler an all that.
I have seen in my work that individual tasks present failures as successes in their final reviews, and I can't think of any examples of a task that admitted "this didn't work out" even though many of the projects I'm thinking of are R&D and really didn't work out at all.
Patagonia can admit failure because they’ve set it up so that failure is a fine outcome and even the attempt is noble.
> Groups never admit failure.
> I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.”
First statement does not follow from the second. The rest of the article is even worse in its sudden jumps to conclusions.
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 leader option, that does happen occasionally. And even when groups don’t instantly change their minds, they can change their minds over time and eventually admit they used to be wrong. That does happen.
The Naval and Balaji type folks often seem tricked into thinking that organizations are actually atomic entities simply because we talk about them as if they are. They’re abstractions. Abstractions over groups of people who are each individually as complex as you and I are. Easy to forget sometimes!
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."
Not to forget, tell them you have understood your mistakes and will do everything possible to avoid them in the future.
That 'possible' is important next time, you fool them. Just in case they remember last time.
Sometimes it even pays to keep its promises.
Like for example, as soon as meme stocks dive in the next recession, most likely the reddit groups based around this will fall apart because the idea that meme stocks are a great way to make quick money will die.
I think the shape of the group changes, those with more deeply held beliefs about a group will stay and perhaps "regroup", but for most, who get attracted to a particular group for no clear first principles, they will leave and from their perspective, the group has definitely died.
But to use the meme stock example above, those who were in the group because of deeper beliefs that meme stocks signal a shift in retail trading and the rise of the consumer need for financial independence early on tied to the lowered barriers of financial transactions thanks to the internet, they will regroup.
Ok back to work
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.
It's not necessarily wrong, but I perceive it as inductive reasoning (failure to admit failure means failure, as a whole), that may not apply to many application contexts.
I've been in the NPO world for over 40 years (as a side gig). I have family that have been in it for even longer (as a full-time vocation); with varying degrees of success. I have friends that work at some very famous and effective NPOs.
I've had lots of failure; both individually, and as a member of a team, and we have always admitted it. I have also had what might be perceived, in the for-profit world, as "failure," but was actually a form of success, in the long game.
The same kind of thing can be ascribed to academia, and even to a selection of for-profit endeavors. I have seen this behavior many times in my "day jobs."
That said, the NPO/Academia world is pretty crazy, compared to the neat, clean lines of for-profit organizations. The main currencies tend to be passion, reputation, and ego, as opposed to money, and that leads to some "strange" behavior. Also, people can be quite ... driven, so the fights can be ... invigorating.
If an organization is wrong about one of its central tenets, it doesn't change that tenet, it splits. This is because if you disagree with one of the central tenets of an organization, you are no longer an guiding member of that organization. Therefore, if an organization of 100 people split because 90 of the people realize that the purpose of the organization doesn't make sense, now you have an organization of 10 people carefully explaining how those 90 never really understood the original purpose, and weren't willing to put in the work.
I think that's the process that strengthens groups, When Prophecy Fails style. Being wrong is a crucible that leaves the group completely composed of members who are only dedicated to the group itself, rather than any external object. The slag, who are hung up on actually being right, get skimmed off.
Groups can come in various shapes and forms but generally they often come with a group leader, and that person can play a major role in defining success/failure.
Controversies over the status of historical figures serves as a complete refutation of this piece. Societies and groups values are constantly changing.
No part of the argument is backed by anything but vague personal experience, and the outcome is as far reaching as “for profits are better than non profits”
Pretty sure the "we were wrong" half of the schism is admitting failure. This feels like a "no true scotsman" fallacy. There are certainly going to be people who never change their minds, but there are many, many examples of groups changing their policies to the reverse of what they were (slavery, gay marriage, outlawing inter-racial marriage, etc). Obviously plenty of people disagree with those changes, but OP's view is that the "real" group is only the people who never changed their minds.
On and individual level people often won't admit to mistakes either. There is a great book called:
Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions and Hurtful Acts
I've been a member of groups that admitted failure. One time a group of us swam through a barnacle-encrusted passageway & cut ourselves. Everyone was bleeding. "That was a mistake," we agreed.
A volunteer group I'm in accept a $150k bequest, and after much soul-searching we decided to return all but $10k. Everyone agreed that we shouldn't have accepted the money in the first place because it caused too much strife in our organization.
>If you want to change the world to a better place, the best way to do it is a for-profit because for-profits have to take feedback from reality.
Why would it be the "best"? Non-profit organisations do have many other ways to have their performance validated and evaluated from "reality" transparently and objectively, just like e.g. a public company.
Sure, non-profit is not sustainable and legally binding etc etc, but the author doesn't provide concrete reason that a specific organisation model serves best for "building a better world." I'm not arguing that non-proft is the "best," but a foundation may receive funding and/or grants from a consortium of various non-profit and for-profit organisations, individuals, and etc.. This does not necessarily make the foundation itself "for-profit." The foundation could operate under critical scrutiny of stakeholders.
If anything, I'd blame the lack of transparency to interested parties (e.g. donors) as the main factor of organisational failure. This applies to both for-profits and non-profits.
What is a group? Its a bunch of individuals that come together to do something.
The problem is that the 'thing' groups come together to do, is different for different individuals. Some people are looking to find completion, some community, some a specific goals, others a series of goals, others want control, others want to learn, etc.
Groups should come together for a specific goals, and then be disbanded when that goal is met or cannot be met. The issue groups do not come together in this way - instead we create a structure that potentially runs in perpetuity (the governance structure is the most egregious example of this.)
If the goals are unclear, if the structure can be hijacked so that one individual is in a position of power over the others, at that point, the group is in conflict - some are winners some are losers. The ostensible goal may end in failure, but only for some in the group. In fact, for the winners, a sort of strung out failure is success! Just look at our political class - the system is failing and no one is happy, but they have converted their parasitic position into a win.
This is ideological, in practice, just like non-profit fail to be profitable, for-profit fail to be ethical.
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...
This is very close to the cynicism of those who accuse for-profit enterprise as only doing things for money with no care for the people their decisions effect, with the slight modification that it's not so much the money managerialists do it for as the power of continuing to do it, money is just one effect of sustaining a dynamic.
Imo, Naval's generalization succumbs to exceptions because it misses the above point of what these groups and boards are formed to do.
The last half sounds a little bit too much like the bias towards markets and profit motives and whatnot without question and without critique. There are plenty of dysfunctional for-profit orgs that don't allocate resources well, in spite of overwhelming feedback, from the market and elsewhere. The majority of for-profit orgs also have a sales team that is out there pounding the pavement trying to drive sales: it's not all, "Build it and they will come."
I don't buy that a successful company needs to be a mission either. That's very common thinking in the startup world, but not even close to representative of the whole.
Organisational culture and group psychology tend to prop up such fallacies, allowing everyone to overestimate and underestimate their contribution to success and failure... these accumulate to organisational fallacies over time. Venkatesh Rao once called the lies cumulating as a result of this "organisational dark matter."
Lies beget lies. If a team is responsible for 180% of the success and 45% of the failure... something has to account for that. External factors played a role. Someone else failed. The project is actually more successful than it is. Etc.
A lot of group psychology is just this... ways of supporting group beliefs.
You only get hurt when you're holding? Crypto for me was always about not using it as a speculative currency, but actually /using/ it when you could. There's a thing called /spending/ which all the wealthy seem to avoid.
Medium and large groups admit failure all the time, but rarely dwell on it. Instead they adjust and evolve, which is the healthy response to failure.
Consider changes in management, business pivots, board changes, values evolutions, even cultural shifts and generational displacement. These are responses to failure after some form of prior admission to failure, even if slight.
The shiny thing that happens is declarations of victory and praise - so that’s where a lot of attention goes and where even the author has a bias. Admissions of failure are by their own mechanics brief and not very sparkly/shiny/attention-getting.
> A group will never admit they were wrong.
I liked this essay, but it seems like they combined these two observations together with their example about the non-profit. Failure and wrongness are not the same thing.
In their main example, it seems like the company did not admit when they had failed at their goals, and the solution to that is to measure the goals and be accountable. But they also did not question whether those goals were the wrong ones to pursue in the first place. Metrics would not improve that, and many for-profit companies run into that reality even while improving their KPIs quarter over quarter.
I would have liked that distinction to be teased out a little more.
In my experience, it's way easier to get a group to admit they have failed. Failure, after all, is only temporary, and often a reason to raise more funding. What's hard is to get groups to say "we need to question if we're working on the right problem", because that is an existential threat to the organization itself. People will fight hard not to change that: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it," etc. etc.
> A group will never admit they were wrong.
ConstitutionDAO tried to buy the US Constitution. When the auction ended there was a large Twitter spaces group that mistakenly celebrated CDAO's 'win' in the auction.
However, when it was revealed that CDAO actually lost the bid, the Twitter spaces group admitted they were wrong and that CDAO failed and then announced it to everyone in the group. [0]
This group admitted failure.
[0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxd5z9/chaos-reigns-as-const...
[1] At least by a Japanese book called "The Essence of Failure" https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4122018331
Lots of non-profits make revenues, selling stuff with customers, they just don't pay dividends by design and re-invest everything. So what he says does not apply.
And again, even foundations are at least oriented to hear feedbacks from donators who are their "customers". So it does not apply here.
The only valid point is that yes, group never admit failure as a whole, but the post should have stopped after this
Germany openly regrets Nazis and Hitler. In the US we admit that letting McCarthy run amok was a huge mistake. Globally billions of people admit that we were wrong to let short term economic interests steam-roll the environment for the last century.
This article feels like a “my logical-to-me sounding hypothesis must be true because I haven’t thought of any counter-examples” rationalization. It doesn’t examine any cases of groups admitting being wrong, and there are lots in history. It doesn’t ask the question why is a group being wrong is a legitimately harder conclusion to come to, even from people external to the group. There usually are debates and individuals causing things to go one way or another.
If you were looking for the least-subtle example of the author's schism theory, i think you found it. :)
Though I get your point - maybe the missing piece is "a schism will split the group... but in the very long term, it might be healed."
Who is this "we" ? I strongly suspect that a large number of those who voted to re-elect the previous president likely incline a little bit in McCarthy's favor. He was anti-commie, anti-leftie, pro-america, and really a model for some parts of contemporary conservatism. Yeah, ok, so a few innocents got hurt, but look ... with all those people in front of McCarthy's committee ... a bunch of them had to be commies, right? No smoke without fire, etc.
Did you consider Asia? Whole departments apologize, and promise to do better next time. Under pressure, yes, but still they do.
End of the Soviet Union?
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 together even on a limited scale. The leaders of the three Slavic republics, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (formerly Byelorussia), agreed to discuss possible alternatives to the union.
On December 8, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus secretly met in Belavezhskaya Pushcha, in western Belarus, and signed the Belavezha Accords, which proclaimed the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and announced formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as a looser association to take its place. They also invited other republics to join the CIS. Gorbachev called it an unconstitutional coup. However, by this time there was no longer any reasonable doubt that, as the preamble of the Accords put it, "the USSR, as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality, is ceasing its existence."
The final dissolution occurred on 25 December 1991 as General Secretary and President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, resigned and transferred power to Russian Presiden Boris Yeltsin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Unio...
On 25 December 1991, in a nationally-televised speech, "Gorbachev resigned as president of the Soviet Union – or, as he put it, "I hereby discontinue my activities at the post of President of the USSR."[137] He declared the office extinct, and all of its powers (such as control of the nuclear arsenal[138]) were ceded to Yeltsin. A week earlier, Gorbachev had met with Yeltsin and accepted the fait accompli of the Soviet Union's dissolution."
You are claiming thse are two different Mikhail Gorbachevs?
That's without even considering the case of parliaments and leadership of the other former Soviet republics also discussed.
Your claim has no merits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat...
You'll also find that mode in numerous "near miss" nuclear accidents, as well as power-plant disasters of other modalities, including the Vaijont and Banqiao dams. Denial of a not-yet-realised risk is a very common failure modality.
Charles Perrow's work in this area, specifically in the role of organisational dysfunction in disasters (Normal Accidents and The Next Catastrophe among other works) is highly recommended.
I still feel if you want to change the world, one of the best ways is to build an ethical business.
Do teams of developers that built something together but is not what was really needed gonna admit they made a mistake? Or just gonna iteratively change to something they should have started with?
Bitcoin does support certain smart contracts, but it just isn’t trying to be a world VM like ETH and instead tries to emulate cash plus a few features.
I agree with the rest though.
also, the first part of the argument brought to mind a few for-profit jobs i’ve worked for, places with the group problem he identifies.
Is this supposed to be satire?
The Linux kernel mailing list is full of admissions from most of the subsystem maintainers talking about past failures. In fact, their strongest arguments for avoiding new commits is essentially that the changes smell like some of their past failures. Look at the kdbus thread. I'm certain I've also seen some ranting about untangling code related to CORBA as well.
Frankly, if an organization were more critical of ongoing fuckups and failures than the Linux maintainers, you'd have to question their core competency.
And Debian! What about the Debian dev who removed entropy from their key generator? Again, if Debian had a more egregious admission of systemic failure it probably wouldn't exist as a distro today.
Even cranks on HN don't attempt a steel man that fucking up the GPG key generation somehow wasn't a failure. Instead, cranks speculate about whether some super secret spy was recruited to introduce a "subtle" change that would have been laughed out of the room if anyone had bothered to directly ask an openssl dev about it.
Now let's commence HN cranks attempting to steel man a novel argument that two of the most prominently discussed groups on HN aren't actually groups.
Edit: also notice that Debian did not fork after the GPG key generation/valgrind patch debacle. AFAICT they released a statement saying, "All your Base from the past several years belong to script kiddies." One could argue that they didn't take the right steps to fix their process going forward. But one cannot argue that they didn't admit failure.
He's making an observation about religious tendencies and belief systems within groups.
Debates within the Linux ecosystem aren't fundamental challenges to it's ethos
A better example for Linux would be a failure to admit that GPLd / non-stable driver API killed any chances for Linux to succeed on the desktop. Even though theoretically everyone in that community wants desktop Linux to succeed they won't give up their core beliefs to allow it, with the result that the desktop remains dominated by Microsoft and Apple. Meanwhile the Linux world has its own driver schism in the form of Android, which has changed how drivers work totally in project Treble to be user-space and more microkernel oriented.
[1] Enoch Powell
Being reliable (in dire crisis) means being trusted without thought.
Surviving with such firmware is what shaped us.
No, wait…
> Naval: Groups never admit failure. A group would...
* Governments never learn. Only people learn.
* One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.
* He moves fastest who moves alone.
* Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own…
* It's always so attractive to be able to do good at someone else’s expense.
It's useful to remember what Friedman's advice did to Chile when he supported the Pinochet regime.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-chicago-boys-i...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/ma...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2008/07/milton-...
Nevertheless, Friedman’s words stand on their own, and I thought that the addition of the quotes worked well with the post. I am not making political statements, because I don’t find them to be appropriate for HN. Peace.
I'm not sure Friedman knew what he was talking about.
In the 1960s and early 1970s, there was a sizable research field devoted to trying to help make human organizations function better (it was most of what used to be called "operations research", but went far beyond the for-profit corporation version of this concept).
For reasons I don't understand, that project appeared to almost completely shutdown by the 1980s, and it's hard to find much evidence that it ever existed today.
The other major similar school was Norbert Wiener's cybernetics, and also systems theory (Jay Forrester/MIT). These took a far broader approach, and were even considered for integration into (and ultimately redefinition of) the social sciences. A fascinating book I have is Alfred Kuhn's The Study of Society: A Unified Approach (1963), which tackles political science, sociology, and economics head on.
Wiener butted heads with the military establishment, in which he'd worked during WWII. Systems Research was closely associated with the Limits to Growth team and Stanford Beer's Project Cybersyn, enacted in Salvador Allende's Chile, and lost when Pinichet (advised by University of Chicago economists) overthrew the government in a coup and assassinated Allende.
Complexity research also was (and sometimes still is) criticised for being vague and nonpredictive. Not entirely without merits. That said there's been something of a resurgence, notably through the Santa Fe Institute.
But the anti-military, Malthusian, and socialist branding has somewhat stuck, and made the approaches if not precisely taboo, highly unpopular at least within mainstream US academia.
OR itself however is a fairly vibrant study and practice, largely by virtue of having avoided the social and political areas. My view is that this has stunted its application even if it's permitted the development and continuation of the field.
That is definitely not true for me. I actually feel responsibility if it's not my money, while I can let myself off the hook for any personal indiscretion far too easily.
Ah, that's why conservatives and capitalists alike want corporations classified as people. Otherwise they'd be in the class of "never learners" too.