fubarobfusco comments on Open Thread, April 15-30, 2013 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (459)
In a few places — possibly here! — I've recently seen people refer to governments as being agents, in an economic or optimizing sense. But when I reflect on the idea that humans are only kinda-sorta agents, it seems obvious to me that organizations generally are not. (And governments are a sort of organization.)
People often refer to governments, political parties, charities, or corporations as having goals ... and even as having specific goals which are written down here in this constitution, party platform, or mission statement. They express dismay and outrage when these organizations act in ways that contradict or ignore those stated goals.
Does this really make sense?
It seems to me that just as the art or science of acting like you have goals is "instrumental rationality", it may be that the art or science of causing organizations to act like they have goals is called "management".
What do you mean by "agent" here?
"Entity that acts like it has goals." If someone says, "The Democratic Party wants to protect the environment" or "The Republican Party wants to lower the national debt," they are attributing goals to an organization.
Can you give an example of something that's not an agent?