If you make a speech about why “we” should do X, then—even though all the decision-makers know that the decision has already been made—your speech looks to others like advocacy for X, and thus makes it look to those others like you are playing a role in convincing the body of decision-makers to do X. This makes you look influential, and gains you status in the eyes of the body politic. (Edit: This is especially useful since—given that the decision has, in fact, already been made—there is zero risk for you of potentially advocating for an action that will not end up being taken. If you make such speeches for all actions that are decided upon, then it will look like your advice is followed every single time. You must be very influential!)
This could be the case, but only in specific political circumstances.
Only a self-deluded person would think that praising the decision after it was made would gain them influence among their peers who just talked about and made the decision. He would be noticed as Fred the weird-colleague-who-doesn’t-talk-during-discussion-but-only-at-the-very-end-once-we’ve-decided-on-things.
Also, your alternative hypothesis, doesn’t seem to account for everyone in the decision group doing it with no further audience, which is the situation I’m talking about.
Only a self-deluded person would think that praising the decision after it was made would gain them influence among their peers who just talked about and made the decision.
We should all be so “self-deluded”! (Do you really mean to tell me that you’ve never encountered this phenomenon?!)
He would be noticed as Fred the weird-colleague-who-doesn’t-talk-during-discussion-but-only-at-the-very-end-once-we’ve-decided-on-things.
I have no idea where this bizarre straw-man came from. I didn’t suggest anything resembling this.
Also, your alternative hypothesis, doesn’t seem to account for everyone in the decision group doing it with no further audience, which is the situation I’m talking about.
It certainly does, unless we’re not only talking about groups where (a) all members participated in the decision-making process and (b) are quite politically savvy, but also positing that all group members have never been in such groups in the past (where they formed a habit that may not be adaptive in all cases, but is nonetheless successful enough of the time to be maintained).
Alternative hypothesis:
If you make a speech about why “we” should do X, then—even though all the decision-makers know that the decision has already been made—your speech looks to others like advocacy for X, and thus makes it look to those others like you are playing a role in convincing the body of decision-makers to do X. This makes you look influential, and gains you status in the eyes of the body politic. (Edit: This is especially useful since—given that the decision has, in fact, already been made—there is zero risk for you of potentially advocating for an action that will not end up being taken. If you make such speeches for all actions that are decided upon, then it will look like your advice is followed every single time. You must be very influential!)
This could be the case, but only in specific political circumstances.
Only a self-deluded person would think that praising the decision after it was made would gain them influence among their peers who just talked about and made the decision. He would be noticed as Fred the weird-colleague-who-doesn’t-talk-during-discussion-but-only-at-the-very-end-once-we’ve-decided-on-things.
Also, your alternative hypothesis, doesn’t seem to account for everyone in the decision group doing it with no further audience, which is the situation I’m talking about.
We should all be so “self-deluded”! (Do you really mean to tell me that you’ve never encountered this phenomenon?!)
I have no idea where this bizarre straw-man came from. I didn’t suggest anything resembling this.
It certainly does, unless we’re not only talking about groups where (a) all members participated in the decision-making process and (b) are quite politically savvy, but also positing that all group members have never been in such groups in the past (where they formed a habit that may not be adaptive in all cases, but is nonetheless successful enough of the time to be maintained).