Join 📚 Quinn's Highlights
A batch of the best highlights from what Quinn's read, .
The Golden Rule Doesn't Account for Other's Preferences and Interests
The Golden Rule fails to consider individual differences, particularly in power dynamics. It assumes treating others as we want to be treated is ethical, but ignores the possibility that they may have different preferences based on their unique characteristics and circumstances.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
The golden rule does not adequately take into account these differences, especially of power. People commonly say, why is it ethical to treat others as we would want to be treated? They may be different than us and may want to be treated differently.
The Golden Rule
In Good We Trust
Bad Norms and Policies Produce "Legislatice Mediocrity" in Organizations
Summary:
Encouraging a culture of being teachable and open to listening to others is crucial for innovation and improvement in organizations.
While standard operating procedures (SOPs) and efficient systems are appreciated, they should not create taboos or hinder learning, leading to what the speaker refers to as 'legislative mediocrity.' The speaker advocates for a focus on innovation and continuous improvement, rather than being stifled by rigid norms and policies.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
You want to be teachable and you want to have a culture of being teachable and listening to others. Yeah. That's that's really important. And so I love SOPs. I love I love it when you get a system working well and efficient. But I don't like it when it creates taboos and when it stops people learning. Legislative mediocrity. It drives me nuts. I'm very much let's do innovation. Let's improve.
Organizational Structures That Enable Knowledge Flow With Stuart French
Because You Need to Know Podcast ™
Ambiguity in Communication is Both a Feature and a Bug
Summary:
In 1984, Eisenberg proposed that ambiguity in communication is important and influential.
This idea suggests that being too clear can limit interpretation and hinder coalition-building. Ambiguity can be used to evade accountability, but it is also a general principle of communication.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
It's Eisenberg in 1984 in communication monographs or something. It's this great rambling paper and this idea has been massively influential to me, but he's basically arguing that it would seem like the point of communication should be clarity, To be as clear as possible. For me to say, I mean this and you do know exactly what I mean and that's the goal and ambiguity is therefore a bad thing. He argues that actually no ambiguity is a really important thing and other people have expanded on this. Now the way I think about this is like a blend of Eisenberg and then other people who've come a bit later, but that in a lot of ways if you're trying to get let's say a coalition, you don't Want to say this is exactly what our goal is and this is what we're trying to do. You want to use vague terms so that a bunch of people can sort of map whatever they think that the goal is onto and say that's consistent. It also leads to a reduction in accountability because after you do something and someone says, you said you were going to do this and you say, nah-ah listen to what I said, it's consistent With what I did because what I said was ambiguous. So it's pernicious in a way too. It's used nefariously in a lot of ways by let's say politicians and other kinds of leaders to avoid accountability, but it's also just a general principle of communication I think.
Paul Smaldino & C. Thi Nguyen on Problems With Value Metrics & Governance at Scale
COMPLEXITY: Physics of Life
...catch up on these, and many more highlights
Readwise