7 ms·

Corporations are not, they're made of humans but they behave worse than an individual.

by edoceo 11d ago

isncjwjxjwnd 11d ago
And who do you think makes these behavioural decisions? There is no “corporation”, there are, however, those currently on that company’s payroll. It’s their fault. The people. The humans. The ones working there. The ones knowingly employing their knowledge in service of the company. It’s always the humans.
- saghm 10d ago
  If the structure doesn't have any influence at all on the behavior, why do we have regulations against monopolies (at least on paper)?
  - DangitBobby 10d ago
    No one says structure doesn't influence behavior. Intended behavior is not the same thing as actual behavior, and groups of people don't behave like individual people. Metaphors to organisms are just: metaphors. We've known for a very long time that mobs of people will do nasty, destructive things that individuals in the mob wouldn't otherwise do. Corporations will also do nasty destructive things that individuals in the corporation wouldn't otherwise do.
    - saghm 10d ago
      Did you read the comment I was responding to? They said corporations don't exist and the individual humans deserve all of the blame. I fully agree with everything you said except for "No one says structure doesn't influence behavior"; I think that's pretty much exactly what the comment I responded to argued.
      - DangitBobby 10d ago
        I don't have access to that commenter's state of mind, but I take it to mean that the "corporation" as a singular entity only exists on paper and in fact acts as a group of individual humans. I don't think that's the same thing as saying the structure having _no influence_, especially since that structure pays people and money influences the behavior of individuals. No influence is a much stronger claim than what was made. But I could also just be projecting my thoughts on the matter onto others when I say "no one says structure doesn't influence behavior".
        saghm 10d ago
        I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. The context of their comment was whether the corporation or humans are to blame, and the comment I responded to reads to me like saying that the corporation has no blame and the humans have all of it. Your opinion honestly does seem mostly aligned with mine (there's potentially blame for both the corporation and the individuals, with the corporation's portion of the blame being from influence on the individuals), and personally I find it kind of hard to determine how much the individual deserves since it depends a lot on circumstances we might never know (e.g. if the individual had a really sick family member, I genuinely might find it understandable that taking a job from Google that pays well even if it's doing some weird stuff with browsers; that's an extreme example, but my point is that I don't think whether it's blameworthy or not is a binary). I just don't read the comment I responded to as agreeing with any sort of nuance like that; my reading is that they're asserting that the individuals are fully and solely blameworthy and that the fact that they were operating under the behalf of a corporation is insignificant.
rectang 11d ago
Fully agree. Humans are social animals who behave differently in different contexts, and the corporate context statistically ensures that the humans inside of it behave in all sorts of lamentable ways.
anticensor 11d ago
Corporations are just groups of people working under a common name towards a common goal, even when that goal is flimsy or bad.
- b112 11d ago
  Yes, but the worst human in an org, has the potential to drag the whole org down. Further, people are not aligned, so groups may disagree with an act, but each lack a majority to effect change. And group infighting may mean no cooperation. We see this in politics. Orgs are political too. (no "political" doesn't mean US Left/Righr here. It means simply "political" which can have nothing to do with government or party politics)
- TeMPOraL 11d ago
  > Corporations are just groups of people working under a common name towards a common goal Exactly in the same way as humans are just groups of cells working under a common genetic identity towards a common goal.

Corporations are not, they're made of humans but they behave worse than an individual.

by edoceo 11d ago

Corporations are not, they're made of humans but they behave worse than an individual.

And who do you think makes these behavioural decisions? There is no “corporation”, there are, however, those currently on that company’s payroll. It’s their fault. The people. The humans. The ones working there. The ones knowingly employing their knowledge in service of the company. It’s always the humans.

saghm 10d ago
If the structure doesn't have any influence at all on the behavior, why do we have regulations against monopolies (at least on paper)?
- DangitBobby 10d ago
  No one says structure doesn't influence behavior. Intended behavior is not the same thing as actual behavior, and groups of people don't behave like individual people. Metaphors to organisms are just: metaphors. We've known for a very long time that mobs of people will do nasty, destructive things that individuals in the mob wouldn't otherwise do. Corporations will also do nasty destructive things that individuals in the corporation wouldn't otherwise do.
  - saghm 10d ago
    Did you read the comment I was responding to? They said corporations don't exist and the individual humans deserve all of the blame. I fully agree with everything you said except for "No one says structure doesn't influence behavior"; I think that's pretty much exactly what the comment I responded to argued.
    - DangitBobby 10d ago
      I don't have access to that commenter's state of mind, but I take it to mean that the "corporation" as a singular entity only exists on paper and in fact acts as a group of individual humans. I don't think that's the same thing as saying the structure having _no influence_, especially since that structure pays people and money influences the behavior of individuals. No influence is a much stronger claim than what was made. But I could also just be projecting my thoughts on the matter onto others when I say "no one says structure doesn't influence behavior".
      - saghm 10d ago
        I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. The context of their comment was whether the corporation or humans are to blame, and the comment I responded to reads to me like saying that the corporation has no blame and the humans have all of it. Your opinion honestly does seem mostly aligned with mine (there's potentially blame for both the corporation and the individuals, with the corporation's portion of the blame being from influence on the individuals), and personally I find it kind of hard to determine how much the individual deserves since it depends a lot on circumstances we might never know (e.g. if the individual had a really sick family member, I genuinely might find it understandable that taking a job from Google that pays well even if it's doing some weird stuff with browsers; that's an extreme example, but my point is that I don't think whether it's blameworthy or not is a binary). I just don't read the comment I responded to as agreeing with any sort of nuance like that; my reading is that they're asserting that the individuals are fully and solely blameworthy and that the fact that they were operating under the behalf of a corporation is insignificant.

rectang 11d ago

Fully agree. Humans are social animals who behave differently in different contexts, and the corporate context statistically ensures that the humans inside of it behave in all sorts of lamentable ways.

anticensor 11d ago

Corporations are just groups of people working under a common name towards a common goal, even when that goal is flimsy or bad.

b112 11d ago
Yes, but the worst human in an org, has the potential to drag the whole org down. Further, people are not aligned, so groups may disagree with an act, but each lack a majority to effect change. And group infighting may mean no cooperation. We see this in politics. Orgs are political too. (no "political" doesn't mean US Left/Righr here. It means simply "political" which can have nothing to do with government or party politics)
TeMPOraL 11d ago
> Corporations are just groups of people working under a common name towards a common goal Exactly in the same way as humans are just groups of cells working under a common genetic identity towards a common goal.