I’m wondering why you think corruption is the natural outcome. The reason I am asking was having seen one of the Nat Geo (or similar) shows about a pride of lion in a less than optimal location for lions. What was observed was that this pride of lions actually cooperated more (in sharing food rather than all fighting over it per some status/badness ranking) than was observe in prides in more suitable territories.
It might have been in this forum, not sure, where someone pointed to some literature about the possibly counter intuitive outcome that hardship of groups actually promoted the cooperative behaviors—suggesting corruption might be more likely in the pre-apocalyptic setting.
Contrary to what we see in movies, is it possible that the post-apocalyptic setting might actually produce a more merit driven social setting that one of corruption and nepotism?
Disasters do promote more pro-social behaviours, and more personal, non-bureaucratic interactions between people (it also promotes more people “acting cooperatively”, but actual cooperation seems much more efficient with laws and markets than with good will). But it’s precisely that that also promotes corruption and nepotism. Running more informal organisation is almost all about personal politics. And cooperation within the tribe often goes along with antagonism towards the outside.
I should also note there’s a difference between competence rewarded, and incompetence punished. I suspect the second happens a lot more than the first.
I suspect that is true but wonder if that works the best or not. This may apply in a lot of cases—and may be wrong but I don’t think so. The culture where I work is very much about reinforcing the positives and ignoring the flaws (within limits). The rule might be stated as reward the desired behaviors and ignore the bad behaviors (again within some limits as accountability is also expected—just seems to be more about trying to get everyone to be accountable themselves rather than walking around with the stick).
That seems like it might apply in a number of settings. The company is a successful, global corporation and is seen as a top performer and preferred place of employment in the market (will not disclose though) so it seems like it is not a terrible approach.
I think this might apply to raising children as well. Children will see the attention of their parents. If the parent tends to focus on the errors and mistakes then the child is likely to act up to get more mommy or daddy time—even when it’s not pleasant. That then leads to forming similar relationships later in life.
Not sure how well that might apply to larger settings like legal punishments. I think there might be something there—forget the saying but basically prison creates hardened criminals out of normal people many times. Still in that setting the few are really seeing the approval of any authority figures so might not apply as well—even ignoring the fact that most cases will be outside the limits of the use the honey not vinegar rule.
Of course this is something of a could/should versus is setting I think—you are simply suggesting the empirical state not suggesting what might be an improvement. Still, the dynamics seem rather more complicated then would be needed to make the the assumption you seem to start with.
I did just have a thought—may or may not be interesting here—regarding the intra-group and inter-group relationships suggested. If we accept that the intra-group relationships under stress might be more cooperative (for survival incentives), then characterizing the post- apocalyptic setting as “defect” or a Hobbesean state of nature seems to suggest that most of the interactions will be inter-group rather than intra-group. That seems questionable to me but I might be thinking wrong on that.
I’m wondering why you think corruption is the natural outcome. The reason I am asking was having seen one of the Nat Geo (or similar) shows about a pride of lion in a less than optimal location for lions. What was observed was that this pride of lions actually cooperated more (in sharing food rather than all fighting over it per some status/badness ranking) than was observe in prides in more suitable territories.
It might have been in this forum, not sure, where someone pointed to some literature about the possibly counter intuitive outcome that hardship of groups actually promoted the cooperative behaviors—suggesting corruption might be more likely in the pre-apocalyptic setting.
Contrary to what we see in movies, is it possible that the post-apocalyptic setting might actually produce a more merit driven social setting that one of corruption and nepotism?
Disasters do promote more pro-social behaviours, and more personal, non-bureaucratic interactions between people (it also promotes more people “acting cooperatively”, but actual cooperation seems much more efficient with laws and markets than with good will). But it’s precisely that that also promotes corruption and nepotism. Running more informal organisation is almost all about personal politics. And cooperation within the tribe often goes along with antagonism towards the outside.
I should also note there’s a difference between competence rewarded, and incompetence punished. I suspect the second happens a lot more than the first.
I suspect that is true but wonder if that works the best or not. This may apply in a lot of cases—and may be wrong but I don’t think so. The culture where I work is very much about reinforcing the positives and ignoring the flaws (within limits). The rule might be stated as reward the desired behaviors and ignore the bad behaviors (again within some limits as accountability is also expected—just seems to be more about trying to get everyone to be accountable themselves rather than walking around with the stick).
That seems like it might apply in a number of settings. The company is a successful, global corporation and is seen as a top performer and preferred place of employment in the market (will not disclose though) so it seems like it is not a terrible approach.
I think this might apply to raising children as well. Children will see the attention of their parents. If the parent tends to focus on the errors and mistakes then the child is likely to act up to get more mommy or daddy time—even when it’s not pleasant. That then leads to forming similar relationships later in life.
Not sure how well that might apply to larger settings like legal punishments. I think there might be something there—forget the saying but basically prison creates hardened criminals out of normal people many times. Still in that setting the few are really seeing the approval of any authority figures so might not apply as well—even ignoring the fact that most cases will be outside the limits of the use the honey not vinegar rule.
Of course this is something of a could/should versus is setting I think—you are simply suggesting the empirical state not suggesting what might be an improvement. Still, the dynamics seem rather more complicated then would be needed to make the the assumption you seem to start with.
I did just have a thought—may or may not be interesting here—regarding the intra-group and inter-group relationships suggested. If we accept that the intra-group relationships under stress might be more cooperative (for survival incentives), then characterizing the post- apocalyptic setting as “defect” or a Hobbesean state of nature seems to suggest that most of the interactions will be inter-group rather than intra-group. That seems questionable to me but I might be thinking wrong on that.