On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Steve Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think any of us believe that our "esteemed leaders" don't fit into > one (or both) of the two following categories: > > Willfully ignorant > Sadly ignorant
I think you're being too generous. I'm afraid that many fall into a category I'll call "Maliciously aware". Usually I prefer to assume ignorance rather than malice when ignorance provides sufficient explanation. However, I think we have to consider the real possibility that many decision-makers are perfectly aware of the cost of their actions to others, but are only concerned with the benefit to themselves (and those close to them). > Greenspan *had* to know that he was presiding at a series of dedications of > a house of cards (Willfully pretending ignorance). Here you seem to agree that true ignorance may not be the issue. We have a system where certain players can reap short-term gains without being held accountable for long-term losses. I'm sure there are individuals on this list with more game-theory or behavioral-incentive knowledge that could elucidate the mechanisms better than I. The most frustrating part is that I simply don't know what can be done about it and how I can help. I can choose to act in what I believe is a more moral way, guided by "enlightened self-interest", but that doesn't have much effect on the system as a whole. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
