You might want to distinguish between the following two propositions.
“People here are not interested in raising the sanity waterline of organizations.”
“People here don’t see how your proposal for experimenting with ‘control markets’ is actually likely to do much to raise the sanity waterline of organizations.”
It seems to me that you’ve had evidence for #2 and have concluded #1.
I’ve been explicitly recommended to get a concrete outcome by villiam_bur and told to I need to focus on one by Modus Ponies. They got up voted. No one has said, “Hey I like your enthusiasm for trying a different organisational structure, would you be interested in helping me try out this type of system first?”. This would have been evidence of 2 for me. And I would have evaluated the system and may have decided to help it.
We probably won’t hit on the right one straight away, but we won’t get anywhere without fostering a culture of experimentation.
Edit:
I think most people are interested in improving organisations in the abstract, lots of people complain about governments etc. I’m looking for people that are actively looking for new organisational methods to try.
If I had an idea I was passionate about, and was looking for people to help make it work, my first instincts would be to find other people who are passionate about it as well, or people who have a demonstrated history of making ideas like mine work. Which one are you?
Technically this thread is evidence for both of those. If whpearson concluded #1, then that was probably because of bad priors (most likely, failing to consider #2 due to ugh fields and/or illusion of transparency), not because of misinterpreting evidence.
Almost everything is evidence either for or against almost everything else. I agree that this thread is some evidence for both #1 and #2, but I suggest it’s better evidence for #2 than for #1 -- and, as you suggest, #2 has higher prior probability than #1.
You might want to distinguish between the following two propositions.
“People here are not interested in raising the sanity waterline of organizations.”
“People here don’t see how your proposal for experimenting with ‘control markets’ is actually likely to do much to raise the sanity waterline of organizations.”
It seems to me that you’ve had evidence for #2 and have concluded #1.
I’ve been explicitly recommended to get a concrete outcome by villiam_bur and told to I need to focus on one by Modus Ponies. They got up voted. No one has said, “Hey I like your enthusiasm for trying a different organisational structure, would you be interested in helping me try out this type of system first?”. This would have been evidence of 2 for me. And I would have evaluated the system and may have decided to help it.
We probably won’t hit on the right one straight away, but we won’t get anywhere without fostering a culture of experimentation.
Edit: I think most people are interested in improving organisations in the abstract, lots of people complain about governments etc. I’m looking for people that are actively looking for new organisational methods to try.
If I had an idea I was passionate about, and was looking for people to help make it work, my first instincts would be to find other people who are passionate about it as well, or people who have a demonstrated history of making ideas like mine work. Which one are you?
Technically this thread is evidence for both of those. If whpearson concluded #1, then that was probably because of bad priors (most likely, failing to consider #2 due to ugh fields and/or illusion of transparency), not because of misinterpreting evidence.
Almost everything is evidence either for or against almost everything else. I agree that this thread is some evidence for both #1 and #2, but I suggest it’s better evidence for #2 than for #1 -- and, as you suggest, #2 has higher prior probability than #1.