Doing the “strong opinions weakly held” thing can make it hard to know when I’ve updated, so I want to list a few updates I’ve made from discussing this post with people on LW and in person:
One of the major things I didn’t realize about the models I was using in this post is when they do and don’t apply. In particular, the models related to radical transparency and applying the values to everyone work better in a private space with strong vetting, and the models related to “balancing needs” work better in a public space with weaker vetting. If I were to write the post again, this is the biggest change I would focus on making.
I am now more skeptical of radical transparency and wary of some of its’ psychological effects, especially in the context of a public space, but even in private organizations with strong vetting.
I still think the “people’s needs are equal with the product of the space” model is basically correct for a public space, but now think that there are multiple ways that could look. One of the ways it could look is like here, but another way this could be implemented is in which everyone is “responsible” for their own feelings. That is, people can treat their own needs as equal by leaving the space if they’re getting annoyed/having bad feelings. I still think this is likely to lead to the most abrasive/thickest skinned people taking over the space, but I think there are probably some spaces that should operate this way, and definitely this should exist in an archipelago model.
I didn’t do enough to distinguish between terminal and instrumental values, and now put more weight on an organization making these things clear, as well as for my own explanations of these cultures.
I think a relatively straightforward disagreement is “peoples needs are equal with the space” seems fairly strong, and unnecessarily so. Why 50⁄50 instead of 75⁄25 or some such? Especially for spacing that are aiming to be, like, a professional production environment, it does seem to me that if you don’t put any effort into making sure people’s basic needs are taken care of you’re product will suffer (as people find ways to make the product fit their needs, in subtle ways). 50⁄50 just seems like a pretty strong jump to me.
I think that there are bad psychological traps that happen when you view a person’s needs as less important than your own, which transfer over to an organization, as well as when you view your needs as lesser. That is, I suspect that in a public/non-vetted space, saying “people’s needs are half as important as the organization” will lead to abuse by people in power at the organization of people with less power, or even by people who feel more senior/in tune with the needs of the organization to newer members. It may also lead to people who don’t know the importance of self-care burning out.
In a vetted or private space, I think you can talk about people being willing to sacrifice their needs for the greater good, as long as its’ done carefully and deliberately with strong checks and balances.
Doing the “strong opinions weakly held” thing can make it hard to know when I’ve updated, so I want to list a few updates I’ve made from discussing this post with people on LW and in person:
One of the major things I didn’t realize about the models I was using in this post is when they do and don’t apply. In particular, the models related to radical transparency and applying the values to everyone work better in a private space with strong vetting, and the models related to “balancing needs” work better in a public space with weaker vetting. If I were to write the post again, this is the biggest change I would focus on making.
I am now more skeptical of radical transparency and wary of some of its’ psychological effects, especially in the context of a public space, but even in private organizations with strong vetting.
I still think the “people’s needs are equal with the product of the space” model is basically correct for a public space, but now think that there are multiple ways that could look. One of the ways it could look is like here, but another way this could be implemented is in which everyone is “responsible” for their own feelings. That is, people can treat their own needs as equal by leaving the space if they’re getting annoyed/having bad feelings. I still think this is likely to lead to the most abrasive/thickest skinned people taking over the space, but I think there are probably some spaces that should operate this way, and definitely this should exist in an archipelago model.
I didn’t do enough to distinguish between terminal and instrumental values, and now put more weight on an organization making these things clear, as well as for my own explanations of these cultures.
I think a relatively straightforward disagreement is “peoples needs are equal with the space” seems fairly strong, and unnecessarily so. Why 50⁄50 instead of 75⁄25 or some such? Especially for spacing that are aiming to be, like, a professional production environment, it does seem to me that if you don’t put any effort into making sure people’s basic needs are taken care of you’re product will suffer (as people find ways to make the product fit their needs, in subtle ways). 50⁄50 just seems like a pretty strong jump to me.
I think that there are bad psychological traps that happen when you view a person’s needs as less important than your own, which transfer over to an organization, as well as when you view your needs as lesser. That is, I suspect that in a public/non-vetted space, saying “people’s needs are half as important as the organization” will lead to abuse by people in power at the organization of people with less power, or even by people who feel more senior/in tune with the needs of the organization to newer members. It may also lead to people who don’t know the importance of self-care burning out.
In a vetted or private space, I think you can talk about people being willing to sacrifice their needs for the greater good, as long as its’ done carefully and deliberately with strong checks and balances.