This essay was just a little too unfocused for my tastes. As an observer of many types of organizations of people, the predilection to spin is endemic. It's not just "in extreme cases"

I scanned the article and kept trying to find some meat, some kind of clear and forceful statement that the author was supporting. Instead it seemed like he was saying a lot of good things, but lacked the intestinal fortitude or insight necessary to actually get anywhere. I was left with a version of "it may be a property of monolithic systems that their motivations are at odds with an accurate perception of reality." That's almost useful, but not quite. There are a lot of interesting places to go from that statement, but we didn't go there. Hell we could have started deconstructing Aristotle and talking about how the tension between the usefulness of categorization versus all abstractions are leaky creates holes in what is knowable. Or we could have moved forward to sociology and discussed the role of the individual in large groups. Or we could have talked AI. Lots of cool places to take this train of thought.

That's a shame. It's obvious the author is well-educated and has thought this through. Sure wish he would have taken us somewhere a bit more interesting.