Disclaimer: I was also a young man who was sure that my cleverness and intelligence was enough to be better than everyone else who didn't see the world the way that I did. I spent some time in the...
Disclaimer: I was also a young man who was sure that my cleverness and intelligence was enough to be better than everyone else who didn't see the world the way that I did. I spent some time in the community before growing older and more disenchanted with cleverness as a solution to everything, so feel free to apply your own biases to what I've written here.
The whole framing of this article is "Everyone else is dumb, so here's how to use those imperfect tools."
Not going to talk about the points brought up in article, but this speaks to my general problem with the "rationalist" community: they seem to believe that they are cleverer and more objective than the people around them, and you can be too, if only you follow their system. So they speak to a surface "rationality", but work on an emotional appeal. From the article:
"The purpose of a bureaucracy is to save the time of a competent person." (That's you!)
"Bureaucracies are best thought of as an extension of their creator and as a source of power for him or her." (Here's how to be powerful!)
"Bureaucracies of this type might grow to be independent powers that interfere with your plans." (Don't let your power slip away!)
"Abandoned bureaucracies might also be viable targets for outside takeover." (Here's how to take other's power!)
It's a compelling framework for intelligent young men because it speaks to their rightness and goodness and power as it flows from how very smart and objective they are, but true objectivity comes from understanding your own biases and being able to see past them. Power comes from community and working with others requires empathy. That's something I haven't seen from the community.
I think you may be projecting your own experience onto this article. I read it and thought it informative, especially for those who haven't worked in a bureaucracy before. I didn't think that the...
: I was also a young man who was sure that my cleverness and intelligence was enough to be better than everyone else who didn't see the world the way that I did
I think you may be projecting your own experience onto this article. I read it and thought it informative, especially for those who haven't worked in a bureaucracy before.
I didn't think that the author was presenting themselves as somehow more clever or smarter than others. They said in plain words many the things that go unsaid about large organizations (which are all bureaucracies). I wish I had known some of these things earlier in my career.
There's a reason that I put that disclaimer at the beginning. My experiences definitely did increase my sensitivity to certain sorts of rhetorical choices, for good or for ill.
There's a reason that I put that disclaimer at the beginning. My experiences definitely did increase my sensitivity to certain sorts of rhetorical choices, for good or for ill.
I do work in a bureaucracy, and the article misses the effect of competing centers of power, all of which create their own co-existing, sometimes overlapping bureaucracies. It's a product of the...
I do work in a bureaucracy, and the article misses the effect of competing centers of power, all of which create their own co-existing, sometimes overlapping bureaucracies.
It's a product of the owners' will to power, the subversions of central control when an organization grows too large for a singular purpose, and too many people who need bulwarks against too much work. Even automation simply creates buried complexity, and more demand for highly specialized labor.
But if you really want to destroy productivity, bring in a new owner, who decides to remake the bureaucracy in his/her own image.
Disclaimer: I was also a young man who was sure that my cleverness and intelligence was enough to be better than everyone else who didn't see the world the way that I did. I spent some time in the community before growing older and more disenchanted with cleverness as a solution to everything, so feel free to apply your own biases to what I've written here.
The whole framing of this article is "Everyone else is dumb, so here's how to use those imperfect tools."
Not going to talk about the points brought up in article, but this speaks to my general problem with the "rationalist" community: they seem to believe that they are cleverer and more objective than the people around them, and you can be too, if only you follow their system. So they speak to a surface "rationality", but work on an emotional appeal. From the article:
"The purpose of a bureaucracy is to save the time of a competent person." (That's you!)
"Bureaucracies are best thought of as an extension of their creator and as a source of power for him or her." (Here's how to be powerful!)
"Bureaucracies of this type might grow to be independent powers that interfere with your plans." (Don't let your power slip away!)
"Abandoned bureaucracies might also be viable targets for outside takeover." (Here's how to take other's power!)
It's a compelling framework for intelligent young men because it speaks to their rightness and goodness and power as it flows from how very smart and objective they are, but true objectivity comes from understanding your own biases and being able to see past them. Power comes from community and working with others requires empathy. That's something I haven't seen from the community.
I think you may be projecting your own experience onto this article. I read it and thought it informative, especially for those who haven't worked in a bureaucracy before.
I didn't think that the author was presenting themselves as somehow more clever or smarter than others. They said in plain words many the things that go unsaid about large organizations (which are all bureaucracies). I wish I had known some of these things earlier in my career.
There's a reason that I put that disclaimer at the beginning. My experiences definitely did increase my sensitivity to certain sorts of rhetorical choices, for good or for ill.
Fair enough :)
I do work in a bureaucracy, and the article misses the effect of competing centers of power, all of which create their own co-existing, sometimes overlapping bureaucracies.
It's a product of the owners' will to power, the subversions of central control when an organization grows too large for a singular purpose, and too many people who need bulwarks against too much work. Even automation simply creates buried complexity, and more demand for highly specialized labor.
But if you really want to destroy productivity, bring in a new owner, who decides to remake the bureaucracy in his/her own image.