The Courage Wolf looked long and slow at the Weasley twins. At length he spoke, “I see that you possess half of courage. That is good. Few achieve that.”
“Half?” Fred asked, too awed to be truly offended.
“Yes,” said the Wolf, “You know how to heroically defy, but you do not know how to heroically submit. How to say to another, ‘You are wiser than I; tell me what to do and I will do it. I do not need to understand; I will not cost you the time to explain.’ And there are those in your lives wiser than you, to whom you could say that.”
“But what if they’re wrong?” George said.
“If they are wrong, you die,” the Wolf said plainly, “Horribly. And for nothing. That is why it is an act of courage.”
I honestly cannot see how the mere existence of people wiser than myself constitutes a valid reason to turn off my brain and obey blindly. The vast majority of all historical incidences of blind obedience have ended up being Bad Ideas.
I believe this lesson is designed for crisis situations where the wiser person taking the time to explain could be detrimental. For example, a soldier believes his commander is smarter than him and possesses more information than he does. The commander orders him to do something in an emergency situation that appears stupid from his perspective, but he does it anyway, because he chooses to trust his commander’s judgement over his own.
Under normal circumstances, there is of course no reason why a subordinate shouldn’t be encouraged to ask why they’re doing something.
I’m not sure that’s the real reason a soldier, or someone in a similar position, should obey their leader. In circumstances that rely on a group of individuals behaving coherently, it is often more important that they work together than that they work in the optimal way. That is, action is coordinated by assigning one person to make the decision. Even if this person is not the smartest or best informed in the situation, the results achieved by following orders are likely to be better than by each individual doing what they personally think is best.
In less pressing situations, it is of course reasonable to talk things out amongst a team and see if anyone has a better idea. However even then it’s common for there to be more than one good way to do something. It is usually better to let the designated leader pick an acceptable solution rather than spend a lot of time arguing about the best possible solution. And unless the chosen solution is truly awful (not just worse but actively wrong) it is usually better to go along with the leader designated solution than to go off in a different direction.
“It can get worse, though, can’t it?” Fred said, “Isn’t that sort of following how people wound up working for Grindlewald?”
“I am talking to you, not to those people. Have you ever come close to doing evil through excess obedience?” the Wolf asked.
“We’ve hardly ever obeyed at all,” George said.
The Wolf waited for the words to sink in.
“But not every act of courage is right,” Fred said, “Just because someone is wiser than us doesn’t seem like a reason to obey them blindly.”
“If one who is wiser than you tells you to do something you think is wrong, what do you conclude?” the Wolf asked patiently.
“That they made a mistake,” George said, as if it were obvious.
“Or?” the wolf said.
There was silence. The Wolf’s eyes bore into the twins. It was clearly prepared to wait until they found the answer or the castle collapsed.
“Or it could… conceivably… mean we’ve made… some kind of mistake,” Fred muttered at last.
“And which seems more likely?”
“Wisdom isn’t everything,” George rallied, “maybe we know something they don’t, or they got careless—”
“Good things to think about,” the Wolf interrupted, “but are you capable of thinking about them?”
“What do you mean?” Fred asked.
“Can you take seriously the idea that you might be wrong? Can you even think of it without my help?”
“We’ll try,” George said.
“There’s more options, though,” Fred though aloud, “We don’t have to decide on our own whether we’re wrong or they are—we could talk to them. Couldn’t we?”
“Sometimes you can,” the Wolf said, “and the benefits are obvious. Can you see the costs?”
“It takes time, that we sometimes don’t have” George said.
“It could give you all away—if you’re trying to sneak past somebody and you start whispering, I mean,” Fred said.
“And it makes extra work for the leader. Overwhelming work if there are many followers,” the Wolf added.
“So it’s another tradeoff,” George said.
“Now you understand. But understanding now and in this place is easy. What is hard is to continue to understand. To make the best choice you can, when all paths may run ill, and one ill fills you with fear but another is only words to you. You have the understanding to make that choice, but do you have the courage?
Unfortunately, the Courage Wolf’s existence proof for “people wiser than you” is nonconstructive: he has failed to give evidence that any particular person is wiser, and thus should be trusted.
How to recognize someone wiser than you is indeed left as an exercise for the reader. And, yes, there will always be uncertainty, but you handle uncertainty in tradeoffs all the time.
Are you seriously claiming the Weasely twins are the wisest characters in HPMoR?
Are you seriously claiming the Weasely twins are the wisest characters in HPMoR?
They already listen to Dumbledore and McGonnagal, they’re already wary of Quirrell, and frankly my actual wisdom rating for Harry (as opposed to raw intelligence that might eventually become wisdom with good training) is quite low.
(You know that the only statements Eliezer himself actually endorses are those made about science and those made by Godric Gryffindor, right?)
Do you have evidence to back that up? Seems to me that organisations with obedient members usually outperform those whose members question every decision; the exception being possibly those organisation who depend on their (non-leader) members being creative (e.g. software development), but those are a pretty recent development.
the exception being possibly those organisation who depend on their (non-leader) members being creative (e.g. software development), but those are a pretty recent development.
No, they are not a pretty recent development at all. The historical common-case is leaders taking credit for the good thinking of their underlings.
And, frankly, your underestimation of the necessary intelligent thought to run most organizations is kinda… ugh.
No, they are not a pretty recent development at all. The historical common-case is leaders taking credit for the good thinking of their underlings.
I agree that there are (probably a lot of) cases where creative thinking from rank-and-file members helps the organization as a whole; however my claim is that obedience also helps the organisation in other ways (coordinated action, less time spent on discussion, less changes of direction), and cases where the first effect is stronger than the second are rare until recently.
i.e. (content warning: speculation and simplification!) you may have had medieval construction companies/guilds where low-level workers were told to Just Obey Or Else, and when they had good ideas supervisors took credit, but it’s likely that if you had switched there organization to a more “democratic” one like (some) modern organisations, the organization as a whole would have performed less well.
I don’t have any in-depth knowledge of the history of organization, I just think that “The vast majority of all historical incidences of blind obedience have ended up being Bad Ideas” is a nice-sounding slogan but not historically true.
And, frankly, your underestimation of the necessary intelligent thought to run most organizations is kinda… ugh.
I specifically referred to non-leader members, i.e. rank-and-file. Which is, like, the opposite of what you seem to be reading into my comment.
I specifically referred to non-leader members, i.e. rank-and-file. Which is, like, the opposite of what you seem to be reading into my comment.
No, I was referring to the rank-and-file as well.
I don’t have any in-depth knowledge of the history of organization,
Then we should ask someone who does.
it’s likely that if you had switched there organization to a more “democratic” one like (some) modern organisations, the organization as a whole would have performed less well.
Then why did we switch, and why are our organizations more efficient in correlation with being more democratic?
Because the correct trade-off between ability to raise expansion capital via selling stock and maintaining worker control has not yet been achieved. Most current worker coops, for instance, do not have any structure for selling nonvoting stock, so they face a lot of difficulty in raising capital to expand.
so they face a lot of difficulty in raising capital to expand.
How would a worker controlled coop expand? Would the new workers be given the same voting rights as the original workers? If so you have to ensure that the new workers have the same vision for how the coop should be run. Also, what do you do if market conditions require a contraction?
The Courage Wolf looked long and slow at the Weasley twins. At length he spoke, “I see that you possess half of courage. That is good. Few achieve that.”
“Half?” Fred asked, too awed to be truly offended.
“Yes,” said the Wolf, “You know how to heroically defy, but you do not know how to heroically submit. How to say to another, ‘You are wiser than I; tell me what to do and I will do it. I do not need to understand; I will not cost you the time to explain.’ And there are those in your lives wiser than you, to whom you could say that.”
“But what if they’re wrong?” George said.
“If they are wrong, you die,” the Wolf said plainly, “Horribly. And for nothing. That is why it is an act of courage.”
HPMOR omake by Daniel Speyer.
Nice. Where did you find that? Either Uncle Google is failing me, or I am failing Uncle Google.
It’s a comment on one of Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Facebook posts. I got permission to post it here, as I thought it was worth posting.
It was a reply to a post on Eliezer Yudkowsky’s facebook.
I honestly cannot see how the mere existence of people wiser than myself constitutes a valid reason to turn off my brain and obey blindly. The vast majority of all historical incidences of blind obedience have ended up being Bad Ideas.
I believe this lesson is designed for crisis situations where the wiser person taking the time to explain could be detrimental. For example, a soldier believes his commander is smarter than him and possesses more information than he does. The commander orders him to do something in an emergency situation that appears stupid from his perspective, but he does it anyway, because he chooses to trust his commander’s judgement over his own.
Under normal circumstances, there is of course no reason why a subordinate shouldn’t be encouraged to ask why they’re doing something.
I’m not sure that’s the real reason a soldier, or someone in a similar position, should obey their leader. In circumstances that rely on a group of individuals behaving coherently, it is often more important that they work together than that they work in the optimal way. That is, action is coordinated by assigning one person to make the decision. Even if this person is not the smartest or best informed in the situation, the results achieved by following orders are likely to be better than by each individual doing what they personally think is best.
In less pressing situations, it is of course reasonable to talk things out amongst a team and see if anyone has a better idea. However even then it’s common for there to be more than one good way to do something. It is usually better to let the designated leader pick an acceptable solution rather than spend a lot of time arguing about the best possible solution. And unless the chosen solution is truly awful (not just worse but actively wrong) it is usually better to go along with the leader designated solution than to go off in a different direction.
“It can get worse, though, can’t it?” Fred said, “Isn’t that sort of following how people wound up working for Grindlewald?”
“I am talking to you, not to those people. Have you ever come close to doing evil through excess obedience?” the Wolf asked.
“We’ve hardly ever obeyed at all,” George said.
The Wolf waited for the words to sink in.
“But not every act of courage is right,” Fred said, “Just because someone is wiser than us doesn’t seem like a reason to obey them blindly.”
“If one who is wiser than you tells you to do something you think is wrong, what do you conclude?” the Wolf asked patiently.
“That they made a mistake,” George said, as if it were obvious.
“Or?” the wolf said.
There was silence. The Wolf’s eyes bore into the twins. It was clearly prepared to wait until they found the answer or the castle collapsed.
“Or it could… conceivably… mean we’ve made… some kind of mistake,” Fred muttered at last.
“And which seems more likely?”
“Wisdom isn’t everything,” George rallied, “maybe we know something they don’t, or they got careless—”
“Good things to think about,” the Wolf interrupted, “but are you capable of thinking about them?”
“What do you mean?” Fred asked.
“Can you take seriously the idea that you might be wrong? Can you even think of it without my help?”
“We’ll try,” George said.
“There’s more options, though,” Fred though aloud, “We don’t have to decide on our own whether we’re wrong or they are—we could talk to them. Couldn’t we?”
“Sometimes you can,” the Wolf said, “and the benefits are obvious. Can you see the costs?”
“It takes time, that we sometimes don’t have” George said.
“It could give you all away—if you’re trying to sneak past somebody and you start whispering, I mean,” Fred said.
“And it makes extra work for the leader. Overwhelming work if there are many followers,” the Wolf added.
“So it’s another tradeoff,” George said.
“Now you understand. But understanding now and in this place is easy. What is hard is to continue to understand. To make the best choice you can, when all paths may run ill, and one ill fills you with fear but another is only words to you. You have the understanding to make that choice, but do you have the courage?
Unfortunately, the Courage Wolf’s existence proof for “people wiser than you” is nonconstructive: he has failed to give evidence that any particular person is wiser, and thus should be trusted.
How to recognize someone wiser than you is indeed left as an exercise for the reader. And, yes, there will always be uncertainty, but you handle uncertainty in tradeoffs all the time.
Are you seriously claiming the Weasely twins are the wisest characters in HPMoR?
They already listen to Dumbledore and McGonnagal, they’re already wary of Quirrell, and frankly my actual wisdom rating for Harry (as opposed to raw intelligence that might eventually become wisdom with good training) is quite low.
(You know that the only statements Eliezer himself actually endorses are those made about science and those made by Godric Gryffindor, right?)
How do you figure? The more famous ones were Bad Ideas, but that’s why they were famous.
Do you have evidence to back that up? Seems to me that organisations with obedient members usually outperform those whose members question every decision; the exception being possibly those organisation who depend on their (non-leader) members being creative (e.g. software development), but those are a pretty recent development.
No, they are not a pretty recent development at all. The historical common-case is leaders taking credit for the good thinking of their underlings.
And, frankly, your underestimation of the necessary intelligent thought to run most organizations is kinda… ugh.
I agree that there are (probably a lot of) cases where creative thinking from rank-and-file members helps the organization as a whole; however my claim is that obedience also helps the organisation in other ways (coordinated action, less time spent on discussion, less changes of direction), and cases where the first effect is stronger than the second are rare until recently.
i.e. (content warning: speculation and simplification!) you may have had medieval construction companies/guilds where low-level workers were told to Just Obey Or Else, and when they had good ideas supervisors took credit, but it’s likely that if you had switched there organization to a more “democratic” one like (some) modern organisations, the organization as a whole would have performed less well.
I don’t have any in-depth knowledge of the history of organization, I just think that “The vast majority of all historical incidences of blind obedience have ended up being Bad Ideas” is a nice-sounding slogan but not historically true.
I specifically referred to non-leader members, i.e. rank-and-file. Which is, like, the opposite of what you seem to be reading into my comment.
No, I was referring to the rank-and-file as well.
Then we should ask someone who does.
Then why did we switch, and why are our organizations more efficient in correlation with being more democratic?
More education and literacy; a more complex world (required paperwork for doing anything...); more knowledge work.
Truth of claim not in evidence.
Claim at least partially in evidence. Methinks your prior doth protest too much.
Then why haven’t worker cooperatives replaced corporations as the main economic form?
Because the correct trade-off between ability to raise expansion capital via selling stock and maintaining worker control has not yet been achieved. Most current worker coops, for instance, do not have any structure for selling nonvoting stock, so they face a lot of difficulty in raising capital to expand.
How will you recognize the “correct trade-off”?
How would a worker controlled coop expand? Would the new workers be given the same voting rights as the original workers? If so you have to ensure that the new workers have the same vision for how the coop should be run. Also, what do you do if market conditions require a contraction?
These questions are all answered in the existing literature.
What about Honda?