Your problem with POSIWID is that you seem to be trying to use the same phrase to communicate several different variations of what it could mean. Sometimes you use it to say “there is no point acting like an organisation is meant to do one thing when it systemically does something else instead”, sometimes you use it to mean “it is impossible to analyse a given system effectively without knowing what it is intended to do”, and sometimes you just use it as a quick and easy way to sum up what a System 5 is. It makes it extremely unclear what it is trying to say, because it A: isn’t clear if it’s explaining a purpose in terms of what it does, or what it does in terms of purposes and B: isn’t clear which definition of each phrase is being used, and in both cases I don’t think it’s consistent either. If I were you, I’d spell out all of the various principles you want to communicate with the phrase, and then work to come up with your own pithy catchphrase for each. At that point, you may find one is still better suited to a modified version of POSIWID, or that you do indeed need to retire the phrase.
If POSIWID is to be a useful heuristic then its practical application needs to be developed, e.g. the contexts in which it's relevant and useful (not only defining principles). This post describes one type of context, another might be policymaking. E.g. it might be argued to be relevant to this point from Sam Freedman: https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2021/07/14/dominic-cummings-is-mostly-right-about-the-problems-wrong-about-the-solutions/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dominic-cummings-is-mostly-right But, ultimately, the first problem – weak incentives to prioritise good policy – leads to the second. The reason the civil service operates in the way that it does is because it suits politicians. If they really wanted civil servants to have deep knowledge in a subject area, or to engage with outside expertise, I suspect that many permanent secretaries would be keen to support that. But that’s not what they want. They’re usually looking for civil servants who are good at finding ways to incorporate existing manifesto commitments and headline-grabbing stunts into something that vaguely resembles an implementable policy. Genuine evidence-based critique, either internal or external, is seen as disloyal and unhelpful. …. So it’s undoubtedly true that the centre of government isn’t designed for maximum effectiveness, but it is designed for what most politicians want: control over the narrative and information. It is nevertheless possible for ministers and advisers who do want to make a serious contribution to do so, as long as it stays largely under the radar.
Nice article. Although maybe you mean those who have the sufficent skills/money can benefit from incompetency? Not sure if that is bias or the consequence of incompetency. Don't think exam result resits are acutely designed to systematically benefit the children of teachers: everyone has to pay the same and applying has to be done through the school, though some many have greater intell to the procedure - but not sure if this constitutes as a ‘bias’, per se - merely a consequence?
Could consequence maybe suit better than bias in a few of these examples?
Maybe I have interpreted the piece wrong, which is more than likely!
I run a few businesses, and in one of them (an agency) we absolutely have a set of processes we use when we start working with an incompetent client. These benefit the client (we need to get the projects delivered, and we're not actually evil), but weirdly it generally makes our lives much easier, since we can easily take effective control of the project just by being better at planning. It is just far less satisfying than working with a competent client, which can be a genuine pleasure.
This sounds very much like "The Big Con" book just out this year on how consulting companies infantilise government institution. Good stuffs in that book. https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-big-con/
On a less high-minded level, is this related to the idea of "weaponised incompetence" in relationships? The idea there being that in a couple, both partners are expected to share the load of a particular duty like the washing up -- only partner A does it so poorly, that partner B takes over their share of the load as well.
Can you or one of your readers point me to the data on GCSE retest accuracy? Or on the system’s bias towards the children of teachers? I can well believe both, but I’d like to see evidence.
There's a strange "you can't win" version of this that people with ME/CFS/Long covid run into also: the ability to get your diagnosis is most often something you can really only achieve by elimination of all other causes. This means the people who end up with an official diagnosis often have a supportive partner with a well paid job with flexible hours to provide for their family.
The disease then gets written up as clearly some kind of psychosomatic disorder (some medical professionals still use the term hysteria, which really shows you where they're coming from) because the only people they see with it are partners of upper middle class professionals. So they get stuck in a version of this where to the university admissions board, only cheats would hire a lawyer to contest their scores, so they're clearly lying.
I hadn't heard the Ritz Hotel joke before and I like it! But according to your link, it was made by a James Mathew who died in 1908; it is the citation in Miscellany-at-Law that dates to 1955. So I should think (hope?) it is well past its centenary.
Reminds of the Woodside CA plans approval process. Friends wanted to build a separate house on the wife's father's property. Plans approval is outsourced. After making repeated plans changes to satisfy the plans checkers they gave up. Woodside is where Steve Jobs was going to live and where Larry Ellison has a Japanese castle. We used to ride our horses through those properties.
Your problem with POSIWID is that you seem to be trying to use the same phrase to communicate several different variations of what it could mean. Sometimes you use it to say “there is no point acting like an organisation is meant to do one thing when it systemically does something else instead”, sometimes you use it to mean “it is impossible to analyse a given system effectively without knowing what it is intended to do”, and sometimes you just use it as a quick and easy way to sum up what a System 5 is. It makes it extremely unclear what it is trying to say, because it A: isn’t clear if it’s explaining a purpose in terms of what it does, or what it does in terms of purposes and B: isn’t clear which definition of each phrase is being used, and in both cases I don’t think it’s consistent either. If I were you, I’d spell out all of the various principles you want to communicate with the phrase, and then work to come up with your own pithy catchphrase for each. At that point, you may find one is still better suited to a modified version of POSIWID, or that you do indeed need to retire the phrase.
If POSIWID is to be a useful heuristic then its practical application needs to be developed, e.g. the contexts in which it's relevant and useful (not only defining principles). This post describes one type of context, another might be policymaking. E.g. it might be argued to be relevant to this point from Sam Freedman: https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2021/07/14/dominic-cummings-is-mostly-right-about-the-problems-wrong-about-the-solutions/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dominic-cummings-is-mostly-right But, ultimately, the first problem – weak incentives to prioritise good policy – leads to the second. The reason the civil service operates in the way that it does is because it suits politicians. If they really wanted civil servants to have deep knowledge in a subject area, or to engage with outside expertise, I suspect that many permanent secretaries would be keen to support that. But that’s not what they want. They’re usually looking for civil servants who are good at finding ways to incorporate existing manifesto commitments and headline-grabbing stunts into something that vaguely resembles an implementable policy. Genuine evidence-based critique, either internal or external, is seen as disloyal and unhelpful. …. So it’s undoubtedly true that the centre of government isn’t designed for maximum effectiveness, but it is designed for what most politicians want: control over the narrative and information. It is nevertheless possible for ministers and advisers who do want to make a serious contribution to do so, as long as it stays largely under the radar.
Nice article. Although maybe you mean those who have the sufficent skills/money can benefit from incompetency? Not sure if that is bias or the consequence of incompetency. Don't think exam result resits are acutely designed to systematically benefit the children of teachers: everyone has to pay the same and applying has to be done through the school, though some many have greater intell to the procedure - but not sure if this constitutes as a ‘bias’, per se - merely a consequence?
Could consequence maybe suit better than bias in a few of these examples?
Maybe I have interpreted the piece wrong, which is more than likely!
I run a few businesses, and in one of them (an agency) we absolutely have a set of processes we use when we start working with an incompetent client. These benefit the client (we need to get the projects delivered, and we're not actually evil), but weirdly it generally makes our lives much easier, since we can easily take effective control of the project just by being better at planning. It is just far less satisfying than working with a competent client, which can be a genuine pleasure.
As an upper middle class parent who dealt with the Los Angeles Unified School District, I found this to be completely true.
Maybe you ought to set up a substack then Combaticus Wombaticus III
This sounds very much like "The Big Con" book just out this year on how consulting companies infantilise government institution. Good stuffs in that book. https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-big-con/
On a less high-minded level, is this related to the idea of "weaponised incompetence" in relationships? The idea there being that in a couple, both partners are expected to share the load of a particular duty like the washing up -- only partner A does it so poorly, that partner B takes over their share of the load as well.
As well as the points about the nimby/proserv interaction, the title is a reference to an entirely different blog post of mine about COVID: https://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2020/11/22/public-incompetence-is-a-moral-issue/
Can you or one of your readers point me to the data on GCSE retest accuracy? Or on the system’s bias towards the children of teachers? I can well believe both, but I’d like to see evidence.
1. Resources are allocated unequally.
2. We are all subject to many systems whose imperfect workings can be addressed with resources.
3. Therefore, the systems are biased against the less-endowed.
I don't think the concept of "bias" fits here. I think you are following Kendi/Okun reasoning, and that reasoning is pernicious IMO.
There's a strange "you can't win" version of this that people with ME/CFS/Long covid run into also: the ability to get your diagnosis is most often something you can really only achieve by elimination of all other causes. This means the people who end up with an official diagnosis often have a supportive partner with a well paid job with flexible hours to provide for their family.
The disease then gets written up as clearly some kind of psychosomatic disorder (some medical professionals still use the term hysteria, which really shows you where they're coming from) because the only people they see with it are partners of upper middle class professionals. So they get stuck in a version of this where to the university admissions board, only cheats would hire a lawyer to contest their scores, so they're clearly lying.
I hadn't heard the Ritz Hotel joke before and I like it! But according to your link, it was made by a James Mathew who died in 1908; it is the citation in Miscellany-at-Law that dates to 1955. So I should think (hope?) it is well past its centenary.
Reminds of the Woodside CA plans approval process. Friends wanted to build a separate house on the wife's father's property. Plans approval is outsourced. After making repeated plans changes to satisfy the plans checkers they gave up. Woodside is where Steve Jobs was going to live and where Larry Ellison has a Japanese castle. We used to ride our horses through those properties.