Much of the inertia and irrationality around large institutions is, I think actually this _persistence machinery_ in action. The parts which seem so often wasteful or inefficient seem to be the same parts which ensure that the mission persists.
Related: when designing systems, *especially* social or political ones, keep in mind what WILL happen when control falls to adversaries who wish either to corrupt or dismantal it. Build in resilience, support, and integrity.
Institutions with robust mechanisms for acception and rejection effectively have a digestive system -- some things get filtered out, the rest becomes part of the group or connected to it.
Sadly, rejection mechanisms are seldom used in most governments I see; the futile scrabbling by the elites to the last thread of the emperor's robe. Usually The Government Was Right In The End is the party line until there's no party left.
Most organizations make me despair for humanity. 😔
@sydneyfalk It's not so much about acceptance/rejection (though I suppose that definitely does come into play). It's more about a million and one things that seem completely idiotic, but actually reinforce the continued persistence of organisations, departments, bureaucracies, and all of that. Self-preservation is part of it, but more than even just that.
@sydneyfalk Also, very much, the idea that, well, _just having an idea_, or even _implementing_ it, isn't enough.
You've got to get _other_ people vested in it. _Seriously_ vested.
Sometimes that happens on account of the initial creator. Sometimes in _spite_ of them.
Also, go beyond just government bureaucracies. Think of ideologies, religions, cults, academic specialisations, programming languages, musical traditions, etc., etc., etc.
Things-that-give-persistence. What's the German word?
I tend to suspect that's a result of victors writing history than an actual benefit to the organization, but I'm told I'm cynical
and I have no idea, TBQH
@sydneyfalk What's antecedent to "that's"?
The points I'm getting at are:
1. Creators aren't (generally) persistors.
2. Starting up isn't enough. You've got to also not-shut-down. (A variant of this was an inspiration to this little thought: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12345506)
3. The mechanics of persistence are complicated and often apparently contradictory.
4. There are few non-contradictory / irrational long-persisting institutions or philosophies.
I think I'm trying to say it's potentially due to survivors fallacy; organizations that fail are what we need to examine, not orgs that succeed forever
Examining *both* populations is best.
Survival conclusions can be drawn from both but if more minnow orgs need to survive accounting for survivors fallacy will be necessary; the truth is that a lot of groups that fall apart is often not well documented out of sheer denial.
* fall apart ARE often not well documented
@sydneyfalk Since I've been reading about Spinoza of late, he's an example.
Philosopher, excommunicated from his religious and cultural community, _itself_ a diaspora of a diaspora culture. Questioned almost all sacred cows of his time. No family. Died at age 44.
And yet his major work was passed on, after his death, to a publisher, and established him as among the greatest philosophers of all time. Not _quite_ household-name status, but pretty close.
@tuttle That's very close to the point.
Though also: not all bureaucratic mechanisms enable perpetuation. Though bureaucracies dominated by characteristics *not* conducive to persistence, don't.
[Notice Regarding the Transfer of the mstdn.jp / mastodon.cloud Services] We have received several inquiries showing interest in a transfer following the announcement of the end of the mstdn.jp and mastodon.cloud services. As a result of subsequently evaluating the situation and making preparations, we have decided that the corresponding services will be transferred to Sujitech, LLC. on June 30. Thank you.