Why do central planners crowd out on-the-ground knowledge? Metis in "Seeing Like a State"

[@mattslater167]

Yay Ashley is back! Watching now.

[@katecherry5114]

In his August 8th, 2011 Google Talk, Psychologist Barry Schwarz discussed content from his then new book, Practical Wisdom: The Right Way to Do the Right Thing. In his talk, entitled, "Practical Wisdom According to Aristotle," he specifically described phronesis or practical wisdom as: - When and how to make the exception to the rule - When and how to improvise - How to mind the mean - How to choose among conflicting virtues - How to take another perspective - How a wise person uses moral skills in pursuit of the right aims; to serve, not manipulate -How a wise person is made, not born I was very much reminded of his talk while listening to your discussion today. Also, to the point that much of right learning is experiential, it strikes me that many great thinkers, including St. Thomas Aquinas, have said that the cardinal virtues, including Prudence (much of which is reflected in the above choice-making) must be arrived at through the routine choosing of prudence, etc., in the course of regular life (i.e. from experience). And, again, the map is not the territory - administrators necessarily summarize into a map, which is lower in granularity than what direct workers know. Interesting stuff. Great discussion. P.S. Metis is the ugliest word since phronesis.

[@dianehoekstra6880]

Thank you so much for shining a light on how well meaning individuals can implement systemic enshitification.

[@HoboGardenerBen]

Going to have to read these books, super fun ideas

[@darrelvela7105]

Hi Ashley, excellent video lecture about Metis as though you're an A.P. teacher at the local school.

[@CAPS_LOCK_0]

6:35 delineates information vs knowledge

[@dakrontu]

This is great, and I recognise in it that, though I worked in a STEM profession which you would see as left-brain biased, when it came to making time-saving leaps, such as in deciding 'what to do' or what look for when reviewing people's work, I was using right-brain thinking, which is beyond analysis, as you say, ie you cannot expect someone to explain their thinking, as that's not how it works. However looking back to the industrial revolution in England one must remember that screws were hand-made and no two were the same therefore it was impossible to substitute one screw (or nut or bolt) for another. This stood in the way of economies of scale, ie mass production of products, for the people, as opposed to 'for a few rich folks'. So standards were implemented and followed such that parts were predictable and interchangeable and could be managed in quantity. So there in a sense you have the 'administrator' who has zero interest in quirky hand-made screws because they don't support the production that is wanted. But that's not to knock what you say, as that applies to mass production, which is essential to our wealth and quality of life. But it is not necessary applicable to a bustling hospital clinic in which consultants have particular areas of expertise and it runs well if they have attuned themselves to one another. And woe betide any management person who steps in the way.

[@HoboGardenerBen]

Seems to me that a long-term balance between admin and those being administrated is impossible within a profit system. That central goal incentivizes the growth of bureacracy through simple greed and market competition. Concentrate more power and profit through a system and people that enjoy wielding those forces will seek out the position. Doesn't take many bad actors in a system to muck it up. I appreciate that you focus on stuff that can degenerate systems without bad intentions, but bad intentions are part of it too, not just systems dynamics steering behavior towards destabilization.

[@quintessenceSL]

Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

[@xaviermagnus8310]

Limited resources make all systems profit driven whether monetarily motivated or not.

[@HoboGardenerBen]

@@xaviermagnus8310 Hi there, I think there is a fundamental difference between a yield that is to meet a need directly and a yield that is intended to be sold for profit. It's the difference between a subsistence garden and a farm. Real resources cannot be scaled artificially like numbers and markets can. Profit is a stance on the actions you take, an intention. In a subsistence garden, the goal is to not starve. To work in long-term cooperation with the ecosyatem to meet your needs. Profit is about creating more than you need and selling it to get other stuff in exchange. I see the difference as profound, and the outcome on the ecosystem is inherently different. Populations are self-stabilizing until you begin storing a vast excess of resources. Then the population increases. Exploitation agriculture is at the root of profit-madness. I highly recommend Toby Hemmenway's lecture about how permacukture can save humanity and the planet but not civilization. He goes into related deep shit to what we're discuasing here.

[@foobargorch]

My main takeaway is that spongebob is complex social commentary kind of like the wire

[@vmizzell]

Edwards Deming called it "operational knowledge."

[@FreeTimeMastermind]

Another winner.

[@stevenkellysillick4042]

But could a corporation ascribe, like beneficial stuff, had there been loyal shareholders to a wise CTO? How do you understand when it is opportune to act as in agency, versus when one speaks as in a forum, versus when one should act autonomously, and is there an emergent form of this thru durability functionality of capital

[@xaviermagnus8310]

Yeah it's called measuring results. Leave alone the productive and give rules to the idiots. It happens in any business with good management... the management system however has been broken by collegiate leadership class that wasn't qualified by specific knowledge, and was captured by certain ideologies making it one of the least effective groups around.

[@stevenkellysillick4042]

@xaviermagnus8310 but I mean you are depersonalizing corporations and objectifying "the management system", and this leads to many assumptions about such policies and collective behaviors, this making it harder for me to extirpate or understand

[@xaviermagnus8310]

@stevenkellysillick4042 I was speaking from experience having watched a number of companies and one very closely including it's decline from a great workplace. It's actually very personal but also seen countless stories verifying it happening country wide.

[@xaviermagnus8310]

@stevenkellysillick4042 And if we don't depersonalize and view them as systems with incentives we'll never get it solved. A very large amount of this is coming from stocks being compromised and a certain group that votes against companies over 30% of the time but has the say because of it's stock power. It then makes bad decisions for ideology and rots the business from the top down.

[@OneLine122]

People want efficiency and reliability. Like the chefs, they created that art and have the experience, but if they get an apprentice, they will want to make sure they follow rules so not to affect those things at least for the customers. They of course can break those rules because they don't need them and aren't the real thing. Expertise is quite qualitative and experts don't agree with each others so in the end, regulations win so that everybody is equal. So the more successful a thing is, the more centralized it tends to be, the more risk-averse people are the more central it will be and a low trust society will create more regulations. To have more metis, you have to allow low output and failures. Nobody wants that in other people, so rules win. People don't see that, but seeking excellence as whole in everything leads to a lack of freedom and yet a lot of them will believe they can both happen at the same time.

[@jbayes5900]

Is this Jordan from "Real Genius"?

[@snippletrap]

The Use of Knowledge in Society by Hayek is a relevant text here

[@PCMcGee1]

This is why the people "on the ground" should be the ones with the ultimate decision power, while planners/lawyers/politicians should be limited to an advisory position. Language, theory and ideation do not provide the je ne sais quoi of the realities that direct experience provides to the one actually experiencing something. "The map is not the territory" as Korzysbsky pointed out thoroughly in his Non-Aristotelian work "Science and Sanity".

[@HoboGardenerBen]

Gonna throw out a guess at the beginning of the video for the title question. First thing that came to mind was numbers. Bureacracy is based on converting everything to numbers. Numbers communicate one element of a thing and nullify all other facets of that thing. All that matters in those systems is the numbers because doing that makes everything seem nice and tidy and controlled. I think that deep down, central planners are cowards who need to control the world to feel the illusion of safety within the illusion of control. They can't let go and flow with the experience of life, with our inevitable death as mortal animals. The word uptight comes to mind, it's figurative but also literal, uptight people's posture changes. Butthole is clenched in, core tight, shoulders up and forward, head forward. All instincts to protect our animal bodies from attacks from other animals, cover up more vulnerable parts with less vulnerable parts. Literally up-tight. Lost in a dream of control. Ok, rant over, back to the video :)

[@juneelle370]

I agree ~ there’s a reason they strive for immortality… death is a part of life, it brings deep meaning to life if we let it… to love and to part is to mourn deeply… a mourning that makes us appreciate love all the more. When they aren’t connected to love, they’re in ego (disconnection from others) and so feel so much less in taking lives of others directly or indirectly and yet, to lose their own terrifies their false self image of separateness and lack of meaning apart from status. Death is the ultimate affront to ego. If they only knew, they are too connected to the great ALL. ❤️

[@EstParum]

"I cant do this action (that they sxtualy can do, nothing usnstoping them excwpt policy)"

[@HoboGardenerBen]

@@EstParum Huh?

[@HoboGardenerBen]

@@juneelle370 Yup, fear of ego loss rhrough death drives most of what people do.

[@juneelle370]

@ if they only knew ego and loss is an oxymoron because there’s nothing to lose but a lie/illusion/lack of Love. Soul is eternal… but even that word, in their separateness, triggers instead of comforts because they themselves want to be what they are not-God.

[@BreezeTalk]

👍👍👍👍

[@gmw3083]

Metis. Meetis. Strange new word. The metis that I know is pronounced 'maitee'. A racial blend of French Canadians and native Canadians from 150 years ago. They were on the ground. Fur trappers. Foresters. Largely forgotten. The system won.

[@clive-live]

Veritas est Adaequatio Intellectus et Rei "Truth is the adequation of things and intellect."

[@Bestape]

Switzerland subsidiarity

[@arthursage9358]

I understand centralized systems bad. Deny healthcare is their fault. You should talked how to build decentralized infrastructure with emphasis on healthcare and development.

[@badart3204]

Eh, they are bad when you ignore the economies of scale factor which is why they emerge so frequently

[@waltonsmith7210]

I like broad central planning, just not when its done by a profiteering elite.

[@iankclark]

Love your content. But why pronounce the Greek word metis as "meetus"? Drives me crazy how everything has to be Americanized. Please, please, a little more care with language.

[@brandonprescott5525]

In the US there is a homonym métis used in Acadian french dialects throughout Louisiana and Quebec.

[@Broken_robot1986]

😂😂😂, 'more care with language'. You're a dork and you don't get to prescribe how words are said. Please please please, get a life.

[@Boylieboyle]

Because it's AI

[@grixlipanda287]

You think the woman in the video is AI?