It looks like the school has agency:; but its movements are decided by the fishes, each taking *individual* decisions.
Same for companies: it seems they have agency, but their behavior is caused by individual decisions of their managers, each made on individual incentives.
1/3
Same for companies: it seems they have agency, but their behavior is caused by individual decisions of their managers, each made on individual incentives.
1/3
https://twitter.com/rainmaker1973/status/1408379453835595783
There is no such thing as “a company decided”.
Instead, it’s: “some of its managers decided.”
It matters, because GROUP INCENTIVES DON’T AFFECT GROUP BEHAVIOR UNLESS THEY’RE TRANSLATED INTO INDIVIDUAL INCENTIVES.
Instead, it’s: “some of its managers decided.”
It matters, because GROUP INCENTIVES DON’T AFFECT GROUP BEHAVIOR UNLESS THEY’RE TRANSLATED INTO INDIVIDUAL INCENTIVES.
The same applies to our brain.
We’re tricked into thinking the brain has agency because it acts as one, like a fish school.
But its actions are decided at the level of its components, each sending an output based on individual internal rules.
Causality is always bottom-up.
We’re tricked into thinking the brain has agency because it acts as one, like a fish school.
But its actions are decided at the level of its components, each sending an output based on individual internal rules.
Causality is always bottom-up.
I wrote about this phenomenon in a chapter of “The Control Heuristic”, gum.co/heuristic 
Group incentives don’t affect group behavior unless they’re translated into individual incentives.
Group incentives should be disregarded from any “why did this group do X” consideration. They’re always confabulation for group behavior.
Always.
Group incentives should be disregarded from any “why did this group do X” consideration. They’re always confabulation for group behavior.
Always.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
