I’m thinking about number 24:
“As the overall maze level rises, mazes gain a competitive advantage over non-mazes.”
Why is this?
Do you only mean this in the sense that in a mazey environment, mazes grow (like a fungus or a virus?). I am trying to think my objection through clearly, but it seems to be that mazes should have some inefficiencies and organizational failure modes that would make them less competitive on a level playing field.
Is it that even a single maze will tend to be so politically oriented and capable (as politics is almost definitionally maze-like) that it will have an advantage over everything else? Is the root problem politics? And taking that a step further, is the root problem of politics one of effectively signaling in a communication-constricted (i.e. too big to clearly suss out all communications) environment?
If that is the case, then an organizational culture and individuals dedicated to hacking signals (politicking) would dominate. It seems this would be a characteristic of people who are fully sold-out to the maze—their resumes would tend to tick every box, their credentials would seem flawless, and their memos would read as perfect professionalism, right?
Put another way, Maze-People are usually really good at audit trails, I wager. Their narratives, credentials, and etc will all seem to ‘add up’ in a way that interfaces well with mazes.
This would make them dominant in some sense and easy to infiltrate organizations.
But I’m still caught on number 24 in the sense that the organizations that have become mazes should have competitive disadvantages. For one thing, they’re being operated by people whose actions might be completely opposed, or at least tangential, to the organizations.
When interacting with a world of low maze levels, or especially when interacting with individuals who have not embraced the maze nature, mazes are at a large competitive disadvantage versus non-mazes. Organizations with too-high maze levels become more likely to fail.
By default, mazes have a disadvantage. The claim is that as society collectively becomes more mazelike, a) the relative disadvantage of being a maze begins to fall, b) mazes collectively create an interface where it’s easier to get ahead if you are conforming to the maze culture. (This could mean that society collectively becomes disadvantaged against other societies)
I’m thinking about number 24: “As the overall maze level rises, mazes gain a competitive advantage over non-mazes.”
Why is this?
Do you only mean this in the sense that in a mazey environment, mazes grow (like a fungus or a virus?). I am trying to think my objection through clearly, but it seems to be that mazes should have some inefficiencies and organizational failure modes that would make them less competitive on a level playing field.
Is it that even a single maze will tend to be so politically oriented and capable (as politics is almost definitionally maze-like) that it will have an advantage over everything else? Is the root problem politics? And taking that a step further, is the root problem of politics one of effectively signaling in a communication-constricted (i.e. too big to clearly suss out all communications) environment?
If that is the case, then an organizational culture and individuals dedicated to hacking signals (politicking) would dominate. It seems this would be a characteristic of people who are fully sold-out to the maze—their resumes would tend to tick every box, their credentials would seem flawless, and their memos would read as perfect professionalism, right?
Put another way, Maze-People are usually really good at audit trails, I wager. Their narratives, credentials, and etc will all seem to ‘add up’ in a way that interfaces well with mazes.
This would make them dominant in some sense and easy to infiltrate organizations.
But I’m still caught on number 24 in the sense that the organizations that have become mazes should have competitive disadvantages. For one thing, they’re being operated by people whose actions might be completely opposed, or at least tangential, to the organizations.
Note that earlier, Zvi specifically says:
By default, mazes have a disadvantage. The claim is that as society collectively becomes more mazelike, a) the relative disadvantage of being a maze begins to fall, b) mazes collectively create an interface where it’s easier to get ahead if you are conforming to the maze culture. (This could mean that society collectively becomes disadvantaged against other societies)