9/28/2025
Have you ever tried to lose weight? Part of you wants to lose the weight, but another part wants the cake. You’re not even aligned internally, and it gets worse. Underneath the desire to lose weight there’s probably a part that wants to look better, and a part that wants to be healthier. Those parts are superficially aligned for the moment but you can see how they might diverge.
Now add a second person to the mix.
There’s a reason it’s a trope for a father to tell a child: “Ask your mother.” Deferring authority can be an effective strategy for maintaining alignment, so long as there is trust in who is being deferred to. Scaling that past a pair or a small team is difficult. “Disagree then commit” is a version of this, deferring authority to a trusted process amongst a trusted team.
Group selection is another common strategy. The stronger the filters for joining a group the easier it is to maintain alignment. A rowing crew filters for a type: willing to wake up very early and work very hard. They’re willing to do those things but probably also they want to be known as someone who does those things.
This is how a scene or a subculture starts, but as they grow in popularity the filters become weaker and alignment fractures. Same goes for startups. If you filter well, have a mission worth believing in, and a leader worth trusting, small groups can stay aligned well past small. At some point though The Game inevitably takes over.
The Game is universal. It is the result of humans organizing into hierarchies.
-twitter user meatball times
The Game is the meta strategy, politics, and maneuvering that often needs to happen to get things done in coordination systems. Deciding which rules to follow and when and which to enforce on who and when. Whisper networks and shadow assignments and stated goals flanked by real ones.
To the extent these are in service of the mission you might not even see them as bad. The founder is likely playing The Game from day one, but doing it so well it’s unremarkable. The ghost in the machine of the mission.
But it’s more commonly derided because it’s more commonly used to advance an individual’s goals in ways that only partially, if at all, align with the organization’s. This is how department heads grow head count with nothing to show for it, or an IC “fails” upward into management.
Of course that’s not the only way large organizations get misaligned. We all operate on imperfect information, and as the surrounding situation changes it’s hard to get a lot of people to all agree on a path forward, even if destination is agreed upon. Should you trudge through the bog or attempt to find a way around it?
Now picture all this on the socetial level. Longshoremen threatening strikes, teachers avoiding phonetics, central bankers setting rates, homeowners fighting developers, enterprises litigating regulations. Which of these are misaligned to society? To their own interests? Are you sure?
True alignment at this level is impossible. Maybe that’s a cop-out of a phrase anyway, maybe all we need is loose alignment. But maybe that’s a cop out as well - who says we need alignment at all? At what scale? The tension of competing interests may well be what drives society forward. And there is the rub. What is forward?
I shouldn’t have written 700 some odd tokens on alignment without discussing orientation but here we are. It’s easy to assume we know what we’re aligning toward in any given context, even when it’s very likely we don’t. That scares me more than anything.