The principle claim of this essay is that groups never change their viewpoints. What's ironic is that it appears in a public environment in which groups are changing their viewpoints, often quite publicly. Many are taking extreme heat for this.
Technical projects and groups are adopting codes of conduct and behaviour, changing stances on what had long been accepted.
Companies are similarly changing their views on what types of behaviour are considered acceptable amongst both staff and leadership.
The high court of the United States just heard a case in which it seems highly likely that it will substantially change its collective mind over a decision it had made some 50 years ago.
The two major political parties of the United States have, over the course of some 60 or so years, virtually completely changed their respective stances on racial equality and civil rights. Not a fast change, but a profound one.
The Catholic Church has reversed itself on earlier condemnations and beliefs, notably of heliocentrism and the conviction of Galileo.
Scientific bodies and disciplines change their mind, preferably based on evidence, all the time. It's what science is. A remarkable case was the development of the theory of plate tectonics from a radical fringe concept to the central organising principle of geology, from 1915 to 1965.
We're in the midst of an onging attempt to change collective understanding, and response to the overwhelmingly evident fact of anthropogenic global warming as a consequence of fossil fuel use.
Reputable news and media organisations report on their own errors and omissions on an ongoing basis.
The most durable institutions in the world are not commercial entities (the five-year failure rate of new enterprises is about 50%). Rather, they are not-for-profit service organisations and institutions, typically schools. The oldest universities date back over 1,000 years, and there are primary schools dating to before the year 1.
And the field of economics has been in the process of admitting the failure of free-market absolutism, or even of free markets as anything other than a special case, for over 150 years.
Groups are resistant to change, yes, but they are not absolutely incapable of it.
Arguing against facts is quite easy where one doesn't bother to consult them.
> The Catholic Church has reversed itself on earlier condemnations and beliefs, notably of heliocentrism and the conviction of Galileo.
But nobody changed their minds or admitted a mistake: people just died or retired and were replaced by different people who thought differently.
The content of the post makes it obvious that it's discussing the actions and decisions of groups over much shorter periods of time: i.e., within a single human lifetime, and actually within quite a small portion of a lifetime, because it's talking about outcomes of funded projects and how they're viewed.
Regarding Galileo affair from what I read it was church following scientific inquiry while Galileo was like trust me I know better because I am authority on this.
At least some of the examples might be explained by _new groups_ taking over _old brands_, no? This would result in the group seemingly change its beliefs, when in reality, it has been replaced.
Take the cathlic church. Say some people realize that the geocentrism is wrong. You have the option of either splitting off and starting something from scratch; or, if you have the option, you launch a coup, and replace the people in the cathlic church, effectively changing the group, but still seeming as the "cathlic church" from anyone outside.
Changing a change of mind is a subset of admitting error. Naval's claim is an absolute ("never"), and a single counterexample serves as a sufficient disproof.
> The principle claim of this essay is that groups never change their viewpoints.
I understood that the principle claim is that groups never admit publicly that they were wrong.
Maybe in reading to much into it, but it is the interpretation I've got.
They can, and actually do change, but it is always a "path of victory".
And in the few cases that they admit they were wrong is to gain an advantage or when they are forced to: To appear humble, to pivot to a trending opinion before the "other side" do (and usually after a huge pressure).
We have several examples of this: Microsoft with Linux (now Linux is trendy, they want to embrace the developers that code on Mac, and so on), Germany after WWII (decided by the allies in the Postdam conference), or any political party that ever existed.
The rant's punchline is "If you want to change the world to a better place, the best way to do it is a for-profit because for-profits have to take feedback from reality."
It could be rewritten to say what you're noting. That would be an entirely different essay, however, and not what was submitted here.
Mind: I'd also find more agreement with that view. It is not, however, the one that was presented.
I guess it was pretty clear that group views meant same people in that group over a period. What you are talking is simply about large organizations where many people or even generations of people have come and gone and obviously held different viewpoint.
Your comment is typical example of arguing over completely different point and then claim as counterexample to original argument.
Technical projects and groups are adopting codes of conduct and behaviour, changing stances on what had long been accepted.
Companies are similarly changing their views on what types of behaviour are considered acceptable amongst both staff and leadership.
The high court of the United States just heard a case in which it seems highly likely that it will substantially change its collective mind over a decision it had made some 50 years ago.
The two major political parties of the United States have, over the course of some 60 or so years, virtually completely changed their respective stances on racial equality and civil rights. Not a fast change, but a profound one.
The Catholic Church has reversed itself on earlier condemnations and beliefs, notably of heliocentrism and the conviction of Galileo.
Scientific bodies and disciplines change their mind, preferably based on evidence, all the time. It's what science is. A remarkable case was the development of the theory of plate tectonics from a radical fringe concept to the central organising principle of geology, from 1915 to 1965.
We're in the midst of an onging attempt to change collective understanding, and response to the overwhelmingly evident fact of anthropogenic global warming as a consequence of fossil fuel use.
Reputable news and media organisations report on their own errors and omissions on an ongoing basis.
The most durable institutions in the world are not commercial entities (the five-year failure rate of new enterprises is about 50%). Rather, they are not-for-profit service organisations and institutions, typically schools. The oldest universities date back over 1,000 years, and there are primary schools dating to before the year 1.
And the field of economics has been in the process of admitting the failure of free-market absolutism, or even of free markets as anything other than a special case, for over 150 years.
Groups are resistant to change, yes, but they are not absolutely incapable of it.
Arguing against facts is quite easy where one doesn't bother to consult them.