You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

buybuydandavis comments on Competence in experts: summary - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 16 August 2012 02:53PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (28)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 16 August 2012 09:38:08PM 3 points [-]

Incentives explain a lot. Add to that incomplete information and intellectual and emotional biases. There are reasons that large organizations are often such hell holes.

Another help is evolutionary theory. If an organization actually solves a problem, it will cease to exist. But if it makes the problem worse, it will be eternal and grow without bounds.

Comment author: othercriteria 17 August 2012 09:30:37PM 1 point [-]

I think your evolutionary theory explanation is a bit underspecified.

Since organizations don't have offspring, classical natural selection can't be occurring. It's conceivable that even if organizations have the tendency to go bad as you describe, new uncorrupted organizations may be created and old organizations may be dissolved at such rates that the vast majority of extant organizations are effectively solving the problems they set out to solve. Or the steady state may be bleaker as you suggest.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 19 August 2012 01:04:10AM 2 points [-]

Since organizations don't have offspring, classical natural selection can't be occurring.

Natural selection can occur without offspring. Natural selection is just having differential kill rates for differing features.

It's conceivable that ...

Yes. Conceivable. The major counter forces are the ability of the first organization to crowd out newcomers by starving them for resources, or infect newcomers with their corruption.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 16 August 2012 11:37:17PM -1 points [-]

Only if it makes the problem worse in a way that is not obvious to those who care about solving it. If the American Lung Association went around giving out cigarettes, people might eventually catch on.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 17 August 2012 10:04:48PM 0 points [-]

Not necessarily if it simultaneously produced research saying that cigarettes are good for your lungs.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 17 August 2012 10:21:28PM *  0 points [-]

Nah. Eventually some folks would decide enter the lung-doctoring profession because their parents had died of lung cancer and they actually wanted to cure it. People are not predictably 100% short-sighted and mercenary; the Prisoner's Dilemma is not the "Prisoner's Stupid Question – Obviously Everyone Defects All The Time."

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 18 August 2012 09:13:22PM 2 points [-]

Well, medicine was dominated by crackpots and charlatans for millennia and no one seems to have noticed until recently. For example, Mercury was used as a cure for all sorts of things for quite a long time. Not to mention how long bloodletting was used in medicine. I could give more examples but you get the idea.