SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Chesterton's Fence: A Lesson in Second Order Thinking:
A core component of making great decisions is understanding the rationale behind previous decisions. If we don't understand how we got "here," we run the risk of making things much worse.
When we seek to intervene in any system created by someone, it's not enough to view their decisions and choices simply as the consequences of first-order thinking because we can inadvertently create serious problems. Before changing anything, we should wonder whether they were using second-order thinking. Their reasons for making certain choices might be more complex than they seem at first. It's best to assume they knew things we don't or had experience we can't fathom, so we don't go for quick fixes and end up making things worse.
Second-order thinking is the practice of not just considering the consequences of our decisions but also the consequences of those consequences. Everyone can manage first-order thinking, which is just considering the immediate anticipated result of an action. It's simple and quick, usually requiring little effort. By comparison, second-order thinking is more complex and time-consuming. The fact that it is difficult and unusual is what makes the ability to do it such a powerful advantage.
Second-order thinking will get you extraordinary results, and so will learning to recognize when other people are using second-order thinking. To understand exactly why this is the case, let's consider Chesterton's Fence, described by G. K. Chesterton himself as follows:
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
Chesterton's Fence is a heuristic inspired by a quote from the writer and polymath G. K. Chesterton's 1929 book, The Thing. It's best known as being one of John F. Kennedy's favored sayings, as well as a principle Wikipedia encourages its editors to follow. In the book, Chesterton describes the classic case of the reformer who notices something, such as a fence, and fails to see the reason for its existence. However, before they decide to remove it, they must figure out why it exists in the first place. If they do not do this, they are likely to do more harm than good with its removal. In its most concise version, Chesterton's Fence states the following:
Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place.
Chesterton went on to explain why this principle holds true, writing that fences don't grow out of the ground, nor do people build them in their sleep or during a fit of madness. He explained that fences are built by people who carefully planned them out and "had some reason for thinking [the fence] would be a good thing for somebody." Until we establish that reason, we have no business taking an ax to it. The reason might not be a good or relevant one; we just need to be aware of what the reason is. Otherwise, we may end up with unintended consequences: second- and third-order effects we don't want, spreading like ripples on a pond and causing damage for years.
[...] Chesterton's Fence is not an admonishment of anyone who tries to make improvements; it is a call to be aware of second-order thinking before intervening. It reminds us that we don't always know better than those who made decisions before us, and we can't see all the nuances to a situation until we're intimate with it. Unless we know why someone made a decision, we can't safely change it or conclude that they were wrong.
The first step before modifying an aspect of a system is to understand it. Observe it in full. Note how it interconnects with other aspects, including ones that might not be linked to you personally. Learn how it works, and then propose your change.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @01:46PM (8 children)
Neither is a whole fully described by looking at a small part of it.
Nor is mischaracterizing the problem. The alleged "get out of jail free" card is not a problem with corporations. The liability shield goes away when you committed the crime.
(Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Sunday May 03 2020, @04:14PM (7 children)
In practice, corporations shield their beneficiaries from more criminal liability than all direct-actor crimes, by a wide margin. Those who are stolen from are unable to pursue the criminals in large part due to the asymmetrical nature of the relationship: David vs Goliath^10.
Just two of a plethora of examples that has been brought out over the past decades:
https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/18/news/economy/wage-theft-workers/index.html [cnn.com]
https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-forms-theft-workers/ [epi.org]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:32AM (4 children)
How? You don't actually mention an example of that in your links. It's not the corporate structure, it's the law. They don't treat wage theft like theft. You'd have the same problem with any sort of other business structure, which I might add, probably make up a large portion of the wage theft mentioned.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 04 2020, @03:12AM (3 children)
If managers (the ones making the wage payment/non payment decisions) were directly exposed for wage theft violations instead of being protected by the corporate shield, that would change behaviors.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:39AM (2 children)
They'd be protected in the same way by any other business structure too.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 04 2020, @01:04PM (1 child)
Right off the top of my head: independent consultancy (which currently has no wage protections) would expose "management" to liability to wage protection violations if such existed in that realm.
Small time contractors and their subs are forever at each others' throats in small claims court over breaches of contract. Not that that's a good thing, but it's another example of David vs. Goliath^0.5 having an actual chance of justice whereas David vs. Goliath^10 has none. That ^10 factor isn't just because the companies are big, it's because they are able to effectively shield their individual actors under the corporate umbrella.
I've never had a dickwad manager actually attempt wage theft on me (though I have had quite a number of dickwad managers over the years, a minority, but a much larger minority than should be.) However, when I have had individual actors pull outright illegal bullshit under a corporate name, the corporation has come together with legal representation, lies (same thing, I suppose), and solidarity to protect themselves from us - then a short time later fire the individual bad actors, not justice for me but something, I suppose.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:03PM
Sounds like the top of your head isn't worth much then.
Needless to say, I don't buy that in the least. There's nothing there relevant to corporations. It's just large business versus individual dynamics.
And yet, you have nothing to say about how that would be any different under any other business structure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2020, @03:44AM (1 child)
To me this is a good example:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-230696/ [rollingstone.com]
Oh yeah normal transaction, couldn't possibly be money laundering...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2020, @03:49AM
In contrast: https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/ [wired.com]