People often attribute the government's inability to solve a problem even after throwing billions of dollars at it; as a sign of incompetence. While there is plenty of incompetence within government; I think the 'Preserve the Problem' response is mostly to blame.
If we 'solved' crime, homelessness, drug use, poverty, etc.; then budgets would decrease and political power would diminish. Those in charge of solving the problem often have the least incentive to do so.
MattGrommes 42 minutes ago [-]
I'm genuinely curious about even a hypothetical more detailed example of how some group would go about preserving a problem like homelessness, even unintentionally. I can't wrap my mind about how it would actually happen beyond simplistic sayings.
I live in Portland, OR where we have a large homeless problem and I continually hear that the groups being given money to help are incentivized to keep homelessness high for their own purposes. Like, obviously people who are paid like to keep getting paid but how would they go about making this happen when their job is the opposite?
SoftTalker 14 minutes ago [-]
In the homelessness example, it's not so much that the programs and groups want to justify their continued existence (though that might be happening too). It's that the programs themselves incentivize more of the problem. When they give things to homeless people, such as food, shelter, clothes, social services, even needles and a "safe place" to get high in some cases, and often with few or no conditions, they make being homeless more tolerable. Word gets around, and people who could not feasibly be homeless where they are are drawn to Portland because they will get more support there.
treis 27 minutes ago [-]
You start by fixing the problem of people sleeping on benches and in tents. Then you go to those in cars, then those crashing on a couch, then those living 8 to a house, then families with small places, and so on. What the problem is keeps expanding until the resources allocated to it are spent.
jerlam 19 minutes ago [-]
Often, the homeless programs provide aid to the homeless with food and clothing and health care, not necessarily to make them not homeless.
It is much harder and expensive for homeless programs to create shelters or homes. It is also difficult if not illegal to force people into housing.
have_faith 2 hours ago [-]
Does anyone within the system genuinely feel threatened by the idea that something like "crime" can be "solved" to the point that they're avoiding solving too much crime? Same logic for the others.
didgetmaster 52 minutes ago [-]
I don't think that anyone believes that some problems like crime and poverty can be solved such that it completely goes away. By 'solving', I meant take action such that the result is obvious in that the problem is greatly diminished.
And yes, I do think that individuals and departments feel threatened that they will be impacted if something like that actually happened.
treis 1 hours ago [-]
It's not quite that black and white. You have fixed amount of policing resources and it goes to the most impactful crimes. If crime goes down then they start caring about petty stuff. If it goes back up then they stop.
This applies more directly to something like foster care. My state is going through a budget crisis and anecdatally the result is significantly fewer kids coming into and remaining in care. It moves at the margins so a borderline case that might have resulted in removal before now doesn't.
As you note it's unlikely that some problems can be completely solved. But our resource allocation is mostly fixed or varies based on circumstances beyond whatever problem is being solved.
enos_feedler 56 minutes ago [-]
If this is true then a restructuring of the entire organizations might help. It seems the flaws are built in.
dooglius 2 hours ago [-]
It's going to be a much more granular detail than all of crime. If your job is to investigate counterfeited 27B-6 forms, you are going to be threatened by that form moving to being filed digitally with cryptographic signatures.
dmitrygr 2 hours ago [-]
A LOT of crime can be solved. A huge percentage of perps are multi-repeat perps. Putting them away permanently would solve a lot of crime.
Unusual? Only because we've made it so. Cruel? Nah. Locking someone up because they're criminally insane is less cruel than letting them roam the streets, both to the perpetrator and the people around them.
tchalla 2 hours ago [-]
… in the US
skinfaxi 2 hours ago [-]
Yes, kind of obvious from the .gov right?
numeri 5 minutes ago [-]
I read the comment you're replying to as saying, "in the US, but other countries may have different policies that result in lower recidivism, and that might change the conclusion; maybe people aren't inherently criminally insane, but can become useful members of society, if given a chance"
foolswisdom 35 minutes ago [-]
While preserving problems is undoubtedly a natural incentive, I think Hanlon's razor applies here. Just today I was reading Competent Bureaucracy - Rebuilding State Capacity (<https://cdn.sanity.io/files/d8lrla4f/staging/cf7eedaf5d21d27...>) on the topic of agency structure promoting success (the author has done a nice amount of work in the past - e.g. https://www.statecapacitance.pub into this history of this topic).
wombatpm 14 minutes ago [-]
Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy: every organization has two groups of people. The first group cares about the organization's main goal. The second group cares about the organization itself. Group two always wins, takes control, and writes the rules.
So NGO’s go from combating homelessness to being the organization about homelessness.
I sometimes think organizations should be set up with hard end dates. At which point the organization is disbanded and resources redistributed. If the problem still exists a new ord should be created with a new scope and new timeline.
grim_io 4 minutes ago [-]
Big Pharma is trying to preserve cancer. Wake up sheeple!
rawgabbit 2 hours ago [-]
The "meta" problem is that political in-fighting usually results in local optimization everywhere. Various departments throw each other under the bus to steal budget/people/resources. When leadership finally decides to right the bus, they hire an outside consultant; this is an important signal to the departments to stop the nonsense and tell the consultant what everyone knows but doesn't want to talk about. Serious problems require serious solutions. It is much easier to say if Y department would give us X, then line go up forever.
0wis 4 hours ago [-]
Nice article, interesting to keep an open mind.
On "No. 0002. Preserving problems", it can happen to people too, no need for a complex system at the size of a company. I have often noticed recognized experts keeping the root of the problem unsolved because it was justifying their position. I may even have been subject of this curse. As an expert, you may know the root cause but have no incentive to solve it and it can be harder to mobilize ressources to solve the root cause than to keep solving the superficial issue. It is management or outside help role to identify and push for solving problems at their root, but it takes time and dedication because of expertise. As most of the time, incentives explain nearly everything.
cheschire 4 hours ago [-]
Seems related to the four risk management strategies:
- Avoidance
- Mitigation
- Transference
- Acceptance
blitzar 2 hours ago [-]
Sounds like the classic 5 stages ... Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance.
Insanity 1 hours ago [-]
Well, I guess both risk management and the 5 stages are inherently a human activity. Not too surprised that behaviour transfers across personal/professional boundaries. :D
sharadov 1 hours ago [-]
The pushing problems around under the guise of solving them for political gain is what corporate and government malfeasance is all about.
The better you are at the game the higher you climb!
functionmouse 2 hours ago [-]
reminds me of an old meme
> have "problem"; don't care: no problem
throw4847285 1 hours ago [-]
There is a fourth that the author would never mention:
Hire consultants about the problem
QuantumFunnel 6 minutes ago [-]
Have unpopular solution or mitigation strategy, hire consultants, execute, blame the consultants
barrenko 23 minutes ago [-]
The problems you have are solutions to the problems you don't want to admit to yourself are actually having.
jagged-chisel 4 hours ago [-]
> … they inadvertently perpetuate the problem
“Inadvertently”? Seldom.
shermantanktop 4 hours ago [-]
Do you think people look in the mirror and say “I’m going to be a terrible person today?”
They look in the mirror and say “good job playing the hand you’re dealt - keep it up!” even while what they do is objectively terrible.
Humans have an incredible capacity for rationalizing their own behavior.
jagged-chisel 3 hours ago [-]
That’s definitely not “inadvertent.”
IAmBroom 26 minutes ago [-]
It is.
Everyone rationalizes their emotional responses. Hangry. Rush-hour impatience in traffic. If you can avoid it, never appear before a judge just before lunch or the end of the day.
bluefirebrand 12 minutes ago [-]
A response that needs to be rationalized is sort of by definition not inadvertent
It might not be intentional but it's not inadvertent
bluefirebrand 13 minutes ago [-]
> Do you think people look in the mirror and say “I’m going to be a terrible person today?”
Not so directly, but I do think that a lot of people don't put any effort into being a good person.
Think of the shopping cart problem. Good people return their shopping carts to the store or a cart return. Many people can't be bothered to do that.
People think "oh I'm not bad for leaving my cart in a parking spot" they think "stealing or damaging a shopping cart is what bad people do"
But they're still kinda bad people for not returning their carts. They're certainly choosing not to actively be good people.
53 minutes ago [-]
MarkusQ 4 hours ago [-]
Three more common ways of responding to a problem:
Weaponize it.
Study it.
Blog about it.
blitzar 2 hours ago [-]
Not my problem - the best kind of problem.
andsoitis 4 hours ago [-]
There’s a fourth: deny
1970-01-01 4 hours ago [-]
There's a 0th: empathy. They want to hear you say you heard them, hear you say the problem is a problem, and have you say the problem is making things harder.
pessimizer 1 hours ago [-]
The cool thing about this one is that you don't even have to understand what they said, just learn how to repeat it back to them with a sad look on your face.
ActionHank 4 hours ago [-]
My colleagues like this one.
4 hours ago [-]
metalman 4 hours ago [-]
or perhaps thats the first response?
in any case, as a hard core problem solver who is currently overwhelmed with problems
I am bieng forced into no choice paragmatic responses. where I have lost any reserve capacity, deflect, move, deny a problem and get some rest, eat, shave the yak, before rejoining the fray with enough energy to perform is just part of the routine now.
ie: triage or go under, which may be habit forming
jagged-chisel 4 hours ago [-]
Denying the problem exists is not the same.
Denying that the problem is a “problem” would be.
In the first case, the affected do nothing because there is no problem.
In the second, it’s “not a problem” because they did a thing and moved it elsewhere.
black6 3 hours ago [-]
The company for which I work seems to be run by engineers. When learning to be an engineer you're taught that doing nothing is always a valid option. In Army leadership courses we were taught that ANY decision is better than NO decision.
My company is stifled by a bunch of engineers in leadership positions who always choose to defer up the chain rather than make a decision themselves.
an0malous 2 hours ago [-]
“Do nothing” can be a decision
josefritzishere 2 hours ago [-]
hug of death?
IshKebab 3 hours ago [-]
The most common response I see is "unfortunately this problem is impossible for us to fix because I can't be bother.. err I mean because of these technical reasons. Yes definitely that."
Rendered at 18:43:20 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
If we 'solved' crime, homelessness, drug use, poverty, etc.; then budgets would decrease and political power would diminish. Those in charge of solving the problem often have the least incentive to do so.
I live in Portland, OR where we have a large homeless problem and I continually hear that the groups being given money to help are incentivized to keep homelessness high for their own purposes. Like, obviously people who are paid like to keep getting paid but how would they go about making this happen when their job is the opposite?
It is much harder and expensive for homeless programs to create shelters or homes. It is also difficult if not illegal to force people into housing.
And yes, I do think that individuals and departments feel threatened that they will be impacted if something like that actually happened.
This applies more directly to something like foster care. My state is going through a budget crisis and anecdatally the result is significantly fewer kids coming into and remaining in care. It moves at the margins so a borderline case that might have resulted in removal before now doesn't.
As you note it's unlikely that some problems can be completely solved. But our resource allocation is mostly fixed or varies based on circumstances beyond whatever problem is being solved.
"75% to 83% of released prisoners are arrested for a new crime" https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-prisone...
So NGO’s go from combating homelessness to being the organization about homelessness.
I sometimes think organizations should be set up with hard end dates. At which point the organization is disbanded and resources redistributed. If the problem still exists a new ord should be created with a new scope and new timeline.
- Avoidance
- Mitigation
- Transference
- Acceptance
The better you are at the game the higher you climb!
> have "problem"; don't care: no problem
Hire consultants about the problem
“Inadvertently”? Seldom.
They look in the mirror and say “good job playing the hand you’re dealt - keep it up!” even while what they do is objectively terrible.
Humans have an incredible capacity for rationalizing their own behavior.
Everyone rationalizes their emotional responses. Hangry. Rush-hour impatience in traffic. If you can avoid it, never appear before a judge just before lunch or the end of the day.
It might not be intentional but it's not inadvertent
Not so directly, but I do think that a lot of people don't put any effort into being a good person.
Think of the shopping cart problem. Good people return their shopping carts to the store or a cart return. Many people can't be bothered to do that.
People think "oh I'm not bad for leaving my cart in a parking spot" they think "stealing or damaging a shopping cart is what bad people do"
But they're still kinda bad people for not returning their carts. They're certainly choosing not to actively be good people.
Weaponize it.
Study it.
Blog about it.
in any case, as a hard core problem solver who is currently overwhelmed with problems I am bieng forced into no choice paragmatic responses. where I have lost any reserve capacity, deflect, move, deny a problem and get some rest, eat, shave the yak, before rejoining the fray with enough energy to perform is just part of the routine now. ie: triage or go under, which may be habit forming
Denying that the problem is a “problem” would be.
In the first case, the affected do nothing because there is no problem.
In the second, it’s “not a problem” because they did a thing and moved it elsewhere.
My company is stifled by a bunch of engineers in leadership positions who always choose to defer up the chain rather than make a decision themselves.