Good post, and not too long. I encourage folks to read the whole thing. The belief that hiding things is inherently nefarious or that people will always take things out of context, is the end...
Good post, and not too long. I encourage folks to read the whole thing.
The belief that hiding things is inherently nefarious or that people will always take things out of context, is the end result of decades (at least in the U.S.) of declining trust levels, particularly in institutions. Government trust really took a hit with the Vietnam War, Watergate, and several other scandals (which most of us weren’t alive for). Once you lose trust (which can happen very quickly), it takes a long time to rebuild it. At the same time, complete transparency (to counteract that lack of trust) tends to result in things not getting done, because every little point gets litigated, nitpicked, or argued over. You see this with things like C-SPAN (where committee votes are now public, recorded, and able to be used in political attacks, making bill negotiations and passage more difficult) and government contracting (instead of being able to just award a contract to a company you know will do a good job, or just go to a local Grainger to buy a part, it has to go to bid, you need people to compliance checks, and more people will fret over cost).
Spoilers for the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey At the end of the film, we learn that the motivation for everything was a government cover-up of an alien civilisation or device that would...
Spoilers for the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey
At the end of the film, we learn that the motivation for everything was a government cover-up of an alien civilisation or device that would certainly spook the populace. It's framed as a benevolent action coordinated by panicked political elites.
I think even the subtle camera shake is an intentional choice to show the listeners' fear. The cover-up doesn't seem directly malicious, but there's reason to believe the lies and deception drove HAL crazy.
There's a natural tension between openness and "getting things done" as you've pointed out. Clearly open information is helpful for preventing corruption, but it also opens up everything to endless debate and process. I'm not sure where the ideal balance lies.
From the article: It seems like this is a bad pattern that can happen with any attempt to keep things private. Why are people discussing things behind closed doors? They must have something to hide!
From the article:
What's notable to me is that both sides were acting reasonably, given the assumption that the other side is untrustworthy.
If you think your opponent will take statistics out of context, then it makes sense to try to keep those statistics hidden. And if your opponent is hiding some statistics, then it makes sense to assume that they're doing it because those statistics contain truths that are inconvenient for them.
By acting on their assumptions, both confirmed the opposing side's existing interpretation of being untrustworthy. They treated the other as a hostile actor and took hostile actions in return, which turned the opponent even more hostile.
It seems like this is a bad pattern that can happen with any attempt to keep things private. Why are people discussing things behind closed doors? They must have something to hide!
Good post, and not too long. I encourage folks to read the whole thing.
The belief that hiding things is inherently nefarious or that people will always take things out of context, is the end result of decades (at least in the U.S.) of declining trust levels, particularly in institutions. Government trust really took a hit with the Vietnam War, Watergate, and several other scandals (which most of us weren’t alive for). Once you lose trust (which can happen very quickly), it takes a long time to rebuild it. At the same time, complete transparency (to counteract that lack of trust) tends to result in things not getting done, because every little point gets litigated, nitpicked, or argued over. You see this with things like C-SPAN (where committee votes are now public, recorded, and able to be used in political attacks, making bill negotiations and passage more difficult) and government contracting (instead of being able to just award a contract to a company you know will do a good job, or just go to a local Grainger to buy a part, it has to go to bid, you need people to compliance checks, and more people will fret over cost).
Spoilers for the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey
At the end of the film, we learn that the motivation for everything was a government cover-up of an alien civilisation or device that would certainly spook the populace. It's framed as a benevolent action coordinated by panicked political elites.
https://youtu.be/PdbhZBpqNPM
I think even the subtle camera shake is an intentional choice to show the listeners' fear. The cover-up doesn't seem directly malicious, but there's reason to believe the lies and deception drove HAL crazy.
There's a natural tension between openness and "getting things done" as you've pointed out. Clearly open information is helpful for preventing corruption, but it also opens up everything to endless debate and process. I'm not sure where the ideal balance lies.
From the article:
It seems like this is a bad pattern that can happen with any attempt to keep things private. Why are people discussing things behind closed doors? They must have something to hide!