When I write and talk about hidden motives, many respond by asking how they could be more honest about their motives. I usually emphasize that we have limited budgets for honesty, and that it is much harder to be honest about yourself than others. And it is especially hard to be honest about the life areas that are the most sacred to you. But some people insist on trying to be very honest, and
Following up on my earlier comments, I had an opportunity to ask Ray Dalio -- via facebook -- the following question;
"I have really tried to take this [i.e. the advice Robin discussed] to heart, but wonder about how to implement it in a work environment where management does NOT embrace admitting weaknesses and mistakes and in fact punishes those who do."
He replied "I suggest that you change your work environment to one that will allow you to be yourself and evolve well recognizing your strengths and weaknesses."
So, it appears that, as Robin noted, his main advice for those who do not sit in an organization that rewards radical honesty is -- leave and find an organization that does. Maybe that's not bad advice. In my own case, I can think of several examples where i stuck around too long in an organization that did not reward honesty, and, looking back I wish I had left sooner.
"The fact that the top guy seems pretty self-absorbed and not very aware of the questions others are likely to ask of his book is not a good sign."
I wonder if anyone at Bridgewater has ever raised the criticisms of Principles that Hanson has (citations, supporting evidence, comparisons to other writings, etc.). If Bridgewater is as open to radical honesty as claimed, then presumably Dalio's underlings would have felt free to raise similar points in the past. On the other hand, had those points been raised, we might have expected Dalio to have revised his manifesto over the years so that his most recent published version would have addressed these issues.
Thanks for talking about the book Principles, Robin. I am a fan of the book but have always been curious about how it actually works in practice. You may have seen this already but others might find this article https://www.businessinsider... interesting. Of course it's hard to know exactly how to take an article like this, given the incentives in journalism to "stir up trouble."
I have to confess if you had asked me yesterday to bet on the question "Would Robin Hanson approve of the radical transparency as set forth in Ray Dalio's principles" I would have put my bet on "Robin Hanson wishes we lived in a world where radical transparency is rewarded but believes that we do not live in that world, and is therefore skeptical about applying the lessons of the book in practice."
In my own case, I found many of the points in the book very helpful. BUT I am self-employed.
Honesty is its own reward, and opinions are opinions and facts, facts, thus the need for radical transparency. It probably doesn't matter whether opinions are honest or not, but whether they are right for a firm like his. Less so whether right for the right reasons, but important in valuing future opinions. `There may be a negative bias as it is easier to avoid decisions and commitments and harder to be held accountable for the ones not taken or for staying with the status quo, when they can affect the results. Few argue with success.
Following up on my earlier comments, I had an opportunity to ask Ray Dalio -- via facebook -- the following question;
"I have really tried to take this [i.e. the advice Robin discussed] to heart, but wonder about how to implement it in a work environment where management does NOT embrace admitting weaknesses and mistakes and in fact punishes those who do."
He replied "I suggest that you change your work environment to one that will allow you to be yourself and evolve well recognizing your strengths and weaknesses."
So, it appears that, as Robin noted, his main advice for those who do not sit in an organization that rewards radical honesty is -- leave and find an organization that does. Maybe that's not bad advice. In my own case, I can think of several examples where i stuck around too long in an organization that did not reward honesty, and, looking back I wish I had left sooner.
"The fact that the top guy seems pretty self-absorbed and not very aware of the questions others are likely to ask of his book is not a good sign."
I wonder if anyone at Bridgewater has ever raised the criticisms of Principles that Hanson has (citations, supporting evidence, comparisons to other writings, etc.). If Bridgewater is as open to radical honesty as claimed, then presumably Dalio's underlings would have felt free to raise similar points in the past. On the other hand, had those points been raised, we might have expected Dalio to have revised his manifesto over the years so that his most recent published version would have addressed these issues.
Thanks for talking about the book Principles, Robin. I am a fan of the book but have always been curious about how it actually works in practice. You may have seen this already but others might find this article https://www.businessinsider... interesting. Of course it's hard to know exactly how to take an article like this, given the incentives in journalism to "stir up trouble."
I have to confess if you had asked me yesterday to bet on the question "Would Robin Hanson approve of the radical transparency as set forth in Ray Dalio's principles" I would have put my bet on "Robin Hanson wishes we lived in a world where radical transparency is rewarded but believes that we do not live in that world, and is therefore skeptical about applying the lessons of the book in practice."
In my own case, I found many of the points in the book very helpful. BUT I am self-employed.
Honesty is its own reward, and opinions are opinions and facts, facts, thus the need for radical transparency. It probably doesn't matter whether opinions are honest or not, but whether they are right for a firm like his. Less so whether right for the right reasons, but important in valuing future opinions. `There may be a negative bias as it is easier to avoid decisions and commitments and harder to be held accountable for the ones not taken or for staying with the status quo, when they can affect the results. Few argue with success.