I view the credibility crisis as one of the largest pieces of the polycrisis. Credibility and accountability share a strong bond.
In even the smallest ways, people are culturally predisposed to make policies to protect themselves from human accountability.
When (any) words on (any) paper are used as a shield to protect themselves from (any) consequences, we're already in danger.
And this isn't new; it's an advanced, sophisticated phenomenon.
Once you see it, you can't stop seeing it.
I had a discussion the other week, about the cultural evolutionary purpose of shame and exile, in humans and other primates.
Their idea was that credibility and accountability were so strong an attribute in the success of cohesive groups. That shame and exile naturally emerged as a safeguard for group success.
Hmmm.
Not sure I agree.
But it is worth a thought.
@corlin I'm around some people who are trying to resuscitate shame as a positive thing.
To me, that ship has sailed, and needs to keep sailing.
Shame is what happens when accountability has jumped the shark.
Problems have solutions. We don't have to get into mud-slinging to find them. In my experience, shame doesn't actually work to solve problems, it only contorts and complicates them.
Indeed, when shame is used as a tactic, it ends up pushing a problematic hierarchical power dynamic.
@corlin Yes, well, stifling and stagnation are the best-case scenario.
From what I've witnessed, the efforts to shame -- and the resistance to being shamed -- are likely to all-of-a-sudden become the entire focus!
Whatever the initial problem was can start to look really small compared to the enormity of the resultant power struggle.
In a low credibility/accountability environment, insecurity is high, which makes any clash like this highly volatile.
It can get so much worse than stagnation!
@sumpnlikefaith
Yep.
My argument against shame, and exile was very similar. It reinforces a hierarchal norm power structure. That stifles innovation, and rewards stagnation.