astralcodexten.com
This made me reflect that I hadn't actually thought critically about the phrase (at least, commensurate to how often it's used). For fun, if you think the purpose of a system is what it does, write what you think that means, before reading Scott's critique, then write if you've updated your opinion. For example:
(Spoilers go between two sets of "||")
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
"When a person shows you who they are, believe them."
No update on opinion. What it means to me: the most useful way to interact with a system is through modeling what it does and how it does it. Not what it says it does, not how it originated, not what its creator intended it to do, not what its subcomponents think it does, not what you want it to do, not what purpose it having would be the best for the world, not what the documentation says it does, not what the label on the tin says it does.
If you don't do this, you will run into trouble. For example, consider corporate DEI training sessions. The entire DEI training ecosystem, including outside trainers/consultants and corporate HR, will publicly state that they are doing it to help reduce bias and discrimination (along with some secondary claims around it increasing efficiency and innovation). Suppose an employee took this at face value, and he's deeply committed to racial DEI. He does some research, and it turns out in general these sessions increase discrimination and racism. And he does further research and is able to prove, with incontrovertible empirical evidence, that the sessions at his own company are making employees materially racist. He reports this to HR; surprisingly, they seem to ignore it. He thinks his report is being missed because of an overworked HR department, and so he publishes his research and evidence widely within the company.
What happens, do you think?
If you take HR's statements of their purpose at face value, you would expect them to effusively thank him for pointing this out to them, quickly remedy the situation as quickly as possible, and maybe even give him a bonus for his exceptional effort in helping them achieve their purpose better.
If you think the purpose of HR is instead to tick boxes to protect the company from legal liability and to join in into popular fads, you aren't as sanguine about the employee's future. You might even expect him to be called into HR for public desanguination.
When it comes to personal decision making, people who use one of these heuristics for ascribing purpose to impersonal systems are going to do much better than people who use the other.
Scott's post is, frankly, lame and disappointing. He doesn't even mention Stafford Beer and only has interest in responding to Twitter randos.
More options
Context Copy link