Ehn. Complete transparency is impossible and often counterproductive. No individual or organization has a correct and concise model of themselves that can be communicated to others. Attempts to do so slow things down and inevitably mislead the conversation into minutia that mask deeper disagreements over values or beliefs. And those disagreements ALSO imply that there’s a strategic advantage to being somewhat opaque.
Transparency is something that I strongly believe is desirable, and my prediction is that it is considered a good by many other people as well, and that they (we) are unlikely to be swayed by arguments like these. The problem is not that I disagree that accurate communication is costly—I do believe that—and it’s not that I believe there aren’t risks associated with increased transparency. It’s just that I think the alternative is much much worse, and that the short term gain associated with opacity is far outweighed by the long-term benefits of greater transparency.
But I believe this may come down to, as you said, deeper disagreements over values and beliefs, and I don’t expect we will converge on a consensus on this very easily.
Transparency is something that I strongly believe is desirable, and my prediction is that it is considered a good by many other people as well, and that they (we) are unlikely to be swayed by arguments like these. The problem is not that I disagree that accurate communication is costly—I do believe that—and it’s not that I believe there aren’t risks associated with increased transparency. It’s just that I think the alternative is much much worse, and that the short term gain associated with opacity is far outweighed by the long-term benefits of greater transparency.
But I believe this may come down to, as you said, deeper disagreements over values and beliefs, and I don’t expect we will converge on a consensus on this very easily.