The Matrix vs Ghostbusters

[mixed_biscuits]

Can there be a football team without a captain, a school without a head, an army without a general?

The person in charge gets the power but also has to carry the can - that's why most people don't want to be in charge.

 

[luka]

Can there be a football team without a captain, a school without a head, an army without a general?

i tend to think Leaders are necessary.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Can there be a football team without a captain, a school without a head, an army without a general?

absolutely. tell me why people categorically can't make their own decisions.

a school is bad example because you're asking if children can govern themselves in the same way as adults

but a football team of adult peers, or a similar setting, sure

it will have pluses and minuses compared to a single leader making decisions

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

you're arguing a different issue, anyway

one is will any group of people develop a hierarchy, even an informal one

the other is, are groups of people capable of making collective decisions, regardless of informal hierarchies among them

I miss vimothy, who was a lot better at arguing this kind of thing

 

[luka]

you could do it but seems reasonable to assume leaders offer a strategic advantage at least in sport and war. hence their ubiquity

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

has anyone in philosophy or economics who's not a Randian ever taken Rand seriously?

I'm not aware of it, but perhaps it's out there

 

[mixed_biscuits]

They can make their own decisions but within a group their decisions impact on others within the group and so shouldn't be taken unilaterally.

The CEO, for instance, gives the level below goals and a remit and then evaluates progress, with the same process mimicked to the level below that.

Having everyone do their own thing creates major snarl-ups - hierarchy is required for coordination as much as anything.

There has to be an executive layer that has more decision-making say (and takes the responsiblity for failures) as otherwise 'who decides who decides'?

 

[luka]

you're arguing a different issue, anyway

one is will any group of people develop a hierarchy, even an informal one

the other is, are groups of people capable of making collective decisions, regardless of informal hierarchies among them

I miss vimothy, who was a lot better at arguing this kind of thing

dm him on twitter.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

you could do it but seems reasonable to assume leaders offer a strategic advantage at least in sport and war. hence their ubiquity

you're assuming that the place having leaders has gotten human civilization too is desirable

effective doesn't necessarily equal better

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

dm him on twitter.

I don't use Twitter

 

[luka]

you're assuming that the place having leaders has gotten human civilization too is desirable

effective doesn't necessarily equal better

no im not!

 

[luka]

no im not!

i said offers a strategic advantage at least in sport and war. where there are clear winners and losers.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

hierarchy is required for coordination as much as anything

I'm aware of how decision-making works, but thanks for that brief summary

pragmatically past a certain point of complexity - though, a higher one than I'm sure you'd think - some kind of hierarchy becomes inevitable

for one, you're assuming that complexity is desirable

also, collective decision-making is not "everyone do their own thing". it's everyone decides what should be done.

and, I'm not saying it's perfect or without difficulties

in fact, having experienced it, it's often a huge pain in the ass

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

i said offers a strategic advantage at least in sport and war. where there are clear winners and losers.

it's true a single leader will be pragmatically more effective in some situations

you didn't ask, will a team with a coach be more effective. you asked, can there be a team without a coach? different question.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

has anyone in philosophy or economics who's not a Randian ever taken Rand seriously?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/supplement.html

 

[luka]

for one, you're assuming that complexity is desirable

desireability is a red herring here. we have to assume there are selection pressures making complexity inevitable

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

we have to assume there are selection pressures making complexity inevitable

why? plenty of human cultures didn't increase in complexity

some of the ones that gained complexity went out and destroyed/murdered the ones that didn't

you could say that's inevitable, but there's no way of proving or disproving that

taken as a whole, there's only one human history, so there's nothing else to compare it to

all you can say is that some cultures become more complex, some didn't

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/supplement.html

alright, she has an entry in a dictionary of philosophy, sure

is there any such thing as Randian studies etc, not directly connected to her or Objectivism? there may be, I don't know

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I'm aware of how decision-making works, but thanks for that brief summary

pragmatically past a certain point of complexity - though, a higher one than I'm sure you'd think - some kind of hierarchy becomes inevitable

for one, you're assuming that complexity is desirable

also, collective decision-making is not "everyone do their own thing". it's everyone decides what should be done.

and, I'm not saying it's perfect or without difficulties

in fact, having experienced it, it's often a huge pain in the ass

I led a national 'members association' for three years which had been created to represent all members' interests equally.

The members were generally not interested in shaping policy directly - unless we moved in a direction contrary to their interests.

How do elicit what they want? By asking them, requesting input, setting up working groups, votes, electing people to the Cttee from their number etc.

Some decisions were most appropriately made by vote; others involved specialist or confidential knowledge - the members' input in those decisions was at one remove: they elected people who they felt would be best able to deal with those situations.

My role was to ensure that the members' interests were always represented in decisions made by the executive layer (who often had their own agendas), as well as give direction to - and, crucially, coordinate - the executive.

The ideal is to get everyone on side, moving together in a positive, morally acceptable direction.

It's also crucial that the executive be in a fundamentally fragile position - that the members can eject them if things start going obviously awry.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

she seems like a massively egotistical (even by the standards of public intellectuals) lunatic

but feel free to disabuse me of the notion. can you sum up what you find ambitious about her morality?