Ben Hoffman

> There is a useful framework for understanding how public discourse degrades, which distinguishes between guilt, shame, and depravity. A guilty person has violated a norm and intends to repair the breach by owning up and making amends. An ashamed person intends to conceal the violation, which means deflecting investigation. A depraved person has generalized the intent to conceal into a coalitional strategy: I will cover for you if you cover for me, and together we will derail any investigation that threatens either of us.

I think Ben wouldn't think he's making that confusion but I've seen him do it a few times in ways that seemed naive about something to me.

I would say he has a good understanding of scapegoating-style dynamics and a good nose for noticing when they might be happening

> The linked article seems to proposing a jump from blaming to denying that blame exists, e.g. "Remember that others are acting rationally from their own perspective," which just plain isn't true if people are engaging the blame behavior described.

If we're going to keep accurate accounts together, and blaming is a common & significant behavior pattern, we need to account for *that* as well, even though it's tempting to either blame it or unsee it instead.

but I'd have to revisit the original article to see to what extent he's confused vs the article is confused

(I wholeheartedly agree with the 2nd paragraph. I'm just not sure if the systems thinker article is making the confusion he thinks they are in the first or if that's a misunderstanding)

incorporate their suggestions