But the more central point is that trying to explain or predict [institutional] behavior idealistically, in terms of things called “values” or moral fortitude, is foolish. It’s magical thinking. “One party believes in...” Institutions don’t have beliefs. They have incentives.
I don’t know about moral fortitude, but institutions certainly have values. It is precisely their values, combined with the environment around them, that create the incentives.
Don’t forget that e.g. money and power are values, too.
As a general statement that seems flatly untrue, unless you mean that people in them have (often conflicting) values. Even thinking that for-profit corporations seek to make money for the corporation, rather than for decision-makers, seems like a dangerous mistake.
You should read it, as least as far as the second image—but the argument says you’re talking about legal fictions as if they were people. Here’s a random piece of real evidence.
the argument says you’re talking about legal fictions as if they were people
And what’s wrong with that?
Organizations and institutions share some characteristics with physical people and do not share others. For example, both organizations and people make decisions. Or, as was mentioned in this thread, respond to incentives.
I think that “having values” is one of those things which can be meaningfully said about both organizations and people. If you don’t believe so, can you offer your reasoning?
What could it mean for organizations to have values in a world of mergers and (profitable) bankruptcies? Unless you’re reducing it to the values of the people making decisions, or an internal game that constrains them, I don’t have the first clue what you believe.
Institutions certainly have optimization targets, which are what we normally call values. Just because you don’t share them doesn’t mean they’re not there.
I don’t know what you’d call an “optimization target”, but if you treat the official written goals as the values of the organization, that will mark you as a useful idiot. You will lose your job whenever it suits the personal interests of the people making decisions.
Let’s consider political parties in the US sense of the term, since corporate examples might be too easy. A party theoretically ‘wants’ to get votes. They could achieve this by (for example) swaying new voters or people who previously voted against them to their side. But this might weaken the power of party leaders within the party. And perhaps those leaders hold office in gerrymandered districts, expecting to retire before the scheme falls apart. Or maybe they don’t hold elected office at all, and get paid regardless of the long-term demographic forecast for their party. Or maybe they simply fear the consequences to themselves if they happen to offend their local base while swaying voters in future national elections.
Internet commenter
I don’t know about moral fortitude, but institutions certainly have values. It is precisely their values, combined with the environment around them, that create the incentives.
Don’t forget that e.g. money and power are values, too.
As a general statement that seems flatly untrue, unless you mean that people in them have (often conflicting) values. Even thinking that for-profit corporations seek to make money for the corporation, rather than for decision-makers, seems like a dangerous mistake.
I am sorry, I’m not going to read an extra-long rumination on a TV series I neither watch nor have any interest in.
Can you provide the argument in a.. condensed form? Preferably without relying on fictional evidence.
You should read it, as least as far as the second image—but the argument says you’re talking about legal fictions as if they were people. Here’s a random piece of real evidence.
And what’s wrong with that?
Organizations and institutions share some characteristics with physical people and do not share others. For example, both organizations and people make decisions. Or, as was mentioned in this thread, respond to incentives.
I think that “having values” is one of those things which can be meaningfully said about both organizations and people. If you don’t believe so, can you offer your reasoning?
What could it mean for organizations to have values in a world of mergers and (profitable) bankruptcies? Unless you’re reducing it to the values of the people making decisions, or an internal game that constrains them, I don’t have the first clue what you believe.
If you want to point out that organizations are not eternal: they come into being, change, and then disappear—so do people.
Institutions certainly have optimization targets, which are what we normally call values. Just because you don’t share them doesn’t mean they’re not there.
I don’t know what you’d call an “optimization target”, but if you treat the official written goals as the values of the organization, that will mark you as a useful idiot. You will lose your job whenever it suits the personal interests of the people making decisions.
Let’s consider political parties in the US sense of the term, since corporate examples might be too easy. A party theoretically ‘wants’ to get votes. They could achieve this by (for example) swaying new voters or people who previously voted against them to their side. But this might weaken the power of party leaders within the party. And perhaps those leaders hold office in gerrymandered districts, expecting to retire before the scheme falls apart. Or maybe they don’t hold elected office at all, and get paid regardless of the long-term demographic forecast for their party. Or maybe they simply fear the consequences to themselves if they happen to offend their local base while swaying voters in future national elections.