Maybe I'm just slow this morning, but I had trouble figuring out what this story was about. The actual title on the linked article is "Historic co-determination helps monasteries navigate digital change across three countries". It's a press release for a recent paper by Danko and Ross of the University of Zurich "Dinosaurs of the organizational landscape facing technological disruption: Liability of aging and exaptation in monastic orders". It's about how old monasteries are coping with modern technology. The paper seems to be available in full here:
Abstract
Some organizations remain adaptable across centuries while others struggle to evolve and ultimately fade into irrelevance. Only a handful of theories can explain this extraordinary adaptability. We test two competing theoretical perspectives in imprinting research: Liability of aging suggests that older organizations are at greater risk of disruption by modern technologies, but older organizations can also repurpose their imprinted structures and processes to their advantage in a process termed exaptation. To resolve this contradiction, we analyze Catholic religious orders and their monasteries. They represent the oldest extant organizations, were founded in various historical eras, and are facing contemporary challenges posed by digitalization. Our quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that the orders with historically decentralized imprints show higher adaptability in embracing digital innovation. Our results confirm that long-term adaptability is increased in organizations whose imprinted decentralized logics provide a propensity for exaptation. However, these long-standing organizations are also more wary of the negative effects of digital disruption and appear to shield their organizational core more strongly. We contribute to imprinting research by shedding light on the intricate relationship between historically imprinted organizational logics and contemporary organizational practice and highlight the often-underappreciated importance of exaptation for long-term adaptability.
The monks likely have the time to think about implementation, and feeling like they’re part of an institution that transcends them and that they value for its own sake, they likely have an incentive to invest effort into maintaining and improving it.
Both of these are unlike, say, corporate environments, where the core work uses up almost all available time and where most people are looking mostly to extract something from the organization.
Your comment (and some others) have me imagining an alternate reality where the vatican runs the equivalent of github and all major FOSS infrastructure is maintained by religious orders. (There's probably a controversy where the catholic and islamic GPL equivalent licenses are incompatible for inane reasons.)
You joke, but, leaving religion out of it, it's plausible that if the want long lived infrastructure that's maintained with integrity, it may be that tithing of some description is part of the solution. Currently the closest we have is patron, but most of those are still part of hustle culture rather than the supporters feeling a long term obligation.
I know that there’s a pretty overwhelming antithesis about religion, hereabouts (there’s a lot of valid reasons, but, in my experience, it tends to originate from personal animus), but some things that you get from organized religion, are a sense of community, a very long view, and fairly strict rules about personal integrity and behavior.
There’s a lot less of the cutthroat competition, than you’ll see in industry and academia, and many folks plant trees that they will never use for shade.
Personally, I’m not religious, but have many close friends that are, and I see this mindset in action.
I also worked for an old-fashioned Japanese company, which had many of the same features.
Even though many people see these as conservative (or weak) traits, they actually work well, for development of new things.
Big things take time, and teams.
Time is supplied by people taking the long view, and making long-term plans, and teams benefit from people not stabbing each other in the back, sublimating personal goals, in favor of those of the collective, and trusting each other, and their management.
I don't want to get into an argument about religion, so I will make a different point.
There are two ways to evaluate things. One is selection: look at the options available, decide which is best, and go all in on that one. The other is to understand things as deeply as possible, what the moving parts are,what makes them tick, what the unknown possibilities might be, etc.
We as individuals have to use selection a lot of the time. You can't do only the good parts of two jobs, or marry only the good parts of two spouses. But it's also profoundly negative to be obliged to only think in those terms: for example, when citizens are told that they have no choice other than to vote for the lesser evil, it lets politicians off the hook for only being slightly less corrupt, and reduces citizens to a passive role. Ironically, those who try to shut political discussion out of HN are doing the same thing: saying "just choose, do not think".
So, while I might be interested in instances where religious people have a longer term approach, it's not interesting to me as a "plus for religion". It's interesting if it leads to understanding and new ideas. Of course, as a non-believer I would like to separate any benefits from the need to be loyal to unprovable assertions. But that's actually secondary.
I think the question becomes "how does this behavior get rewarded?".
I agree with most of this, and also have experienced the positive outcomes of people thinking ahead and sublimating short term reward for long term gain (for the collective).
However it seems antithetical to put a reward function on it so there is this catch-22 about what makes the thing "good" also makes it difficult to achieve.
Wealth, honour/fame/glory, power, pleasure are not bad in themselves, but generally can be considered as means to an end of and not really ends in themselves:
That also sound a lot like the Amish. Take the time to think about implementation, advantages, disadvantages and the societal impact of a technology, before committing to it.
They have a reputation as medieval peasants, but they are not afraid of technology. They are just extremely picky. They build furniture in factories and sell them on a website. If you want durable, it is well worth the extra price.
It's not everyone, but thoughtful managers do think beyond themselves.
They know they will outlast some of their reports, so they're incentivized to build memory and maintainability at the levels below them.
And good managers get promoted, i.e. leave the team but stay in the company, so there's a reputational incentive to leave things in a good place for whoever comes after you. (Though this is only true at good orgs -- at bad orgs, the next person will get fully blamed for a bad handoff).
The best leaders have values that transcend their bank account, and understand their legacy depends on being able to transition effectively.
Your career and relationships transcend any single gig, and there is a dignity that people recognize in departing well, and even in making the best of a bad job. Campground rule, leave things better than you found them.
Whats is always interesting about monestic life and its emergence (minus light sabers) is that society across cultures has created spaces for people who dont fit. This need has been recognized and supported for thousands of years.
I guess. Some monasteries were located in busy towns, had bells, chants, animals, workshops, etc. But if you found a place that was a good fit, and the monastery didn’t dislike you for other reasons (e.g. being left handed), then yes. Otherwise there were other peaceful occupations; from highly specialized crafts to literal hermits.
FWIW, "lay monasteries" and hermitages exist, and there are some religious ones which are not strict about who wants to join, the Bose monastic community[0] comes to mind talking of christianity, but there's plenty for other religions.
There are still places like Slab City, California (the desert town with no laws). That kind of place is not for me though. I like neighbors who mind their own business, but I still need some amount of law and order.
There are still plenty of religious cults out there if that is your thing, probably more than have ever been. Otherwise the "misfits" are nowdays also organizing themself to indeed fit somewhere and don't just accept to be outcasts.
Sorry, but the whole concept of "place for people who don't fit" - is really not appropriate for monasteries in general. Because they have been very strict about who can fit. Only those who are fine with this special lifestyle and fixed rituals (and fixed hierachy and dogma). And most monks had to adopt to accept, whether they liked it or not, as the alternative was starving.
Religion is one of the best at marketing and fund-raising since millenias. Why is it surprising that they adapt to new tech? They have done it for printing press before that.
Researchers discover that monks (who are actually human beings) can deliberate, adapt and problem solve. Together. Like adults. Crazy world we live in that this has been proven possible.
I can barely figure out what this article is about because the language is like molasses.
It stands to reason that disciplined, dopamine starved monks find modern engagement economy computers and software somewhat engaging, as they are probably like recreational drugs to enquiring bored minds
> In fact, forms of co-determination and decentralized responsibility that have developed over time are particularly resilient. In many monasteries, the "CEOs" are elected by the community and can be unelected at any time, and everyone is consulted on important decisions.
So do they have have a sort of executive officer for the week/month/year, with all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more important matters?
Oh if religion wasn't responsible for "massive cultural destruction" then mankind would have invented something else to do it (whatever is meant by "massive cultural destruction").
I disagree. When you are absolutely sure that God itself is on your side, then there is no atrocity to big to commit. I feel that religious zeal has led to some of the worst catastrophes in human history. I would put para-religious zeal in that category too, like dogmatic forms of communism.
The Crusades and colonialism can’t be distilled down to single causes, but even if you tried, religious reasons would not be the main ones. Political and financial motivations were far bigger factors in both.
Maybe I'm just slow this morning, but I had trouble figuring out what this story was about. The actual title on the linked article is "Historic co-determination helps monasteries navigate digital change across three countries". It's a press release for a recent paper by Danko and Ross of the University of Zurich "Dinosaurs of the organizational landscape facing technological disruption: Liability of aging and exaptation in monastic orders". It's about how old monasteries are coping with modern technology. The paper seems to be available in full here:
Abstract
Some organizations remain adaptable across centuries while others struggle to evolve and ultimately fade into irrelevance. Only a handful of theories can explain this extraordinary adaptability. We test two competing theoretical perspectives in imprinting research: Liability of aging suggests that older organizations are at greater risk of disruption by modern technologies, but older organizations can also repurpose their imprinted structures and processes to their advantage in a process termed exaptation. To resolve this contradiction, we analyze Catholic religious orders and their monasteries. They represent the oldest extant organizations, were founded in various historical eras, and are facing contemporary challenges posed by digitalization. Our quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that the orders with historically decentralized imprints show higher adaptability in embracing digital innovation. Our results confirm that long-term adaptability is increased in organizations whose imprinted decentralized logics provide a propensity for exaptation. However, these long-standing organizations are also more wary of the negative effects of digital disruption and appear to shield their organizational core more strongly. We contribute to imprinting research by shedding light on the intricate relationship between historically imprinted organizational logics and contemporary organizational practice and highlight the often-underappreciated importance of exaptation for long-term adaptability.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873332...
The monks likely have the time to think about implementation, and feeling like they’re part of an institution that transcends them and that they value for its own sake, they likely have an incentive to invest effort into maintaining and improving it.
Both of these are unlike, say, corporate environments, where the core work uses up almost all available time and where most people are looking mostly to extract something from the organization.
Your comment (and some others) have me imagining an alternate reality where the vatican runs the equivalent of github and all major FOSS infrastructure is maintained by religious orders. (There's probably a controversy where the catholic and islamic GPL equivalent licenses are incompatible for inane reasons.)
You joke, but, leaving religion out of it, it's plausible that if the want long lived infrastructure that's maintained with integrity, it may be that tithing of some description is part of the solution. Currently the closest we have is patron, but most of those are still part of hustle culture rather than the supporters feeling a long term obligation.
I know that there’s a pretty overwhelming antithesis about religion, hereabouts (there’s a lot of valid reasons, but, in my experience, it tends to originate from personal animus), but some things that you get from organized religion, are a sense of community, a very long view, and fairly strict rules about personal integrity and behavior.
There’s a lot less of the cutthroat competition, than you’ll see in industry and academia, and many folks plant trees that they will never use for shade.
Personally, I’m not religious, but have many close friends that are, and I see this mindset in action.
I also worked for an old-fashioned Japanese company, which had many of the same features.
Even though many people see these as conservative (or weak) traits, they actually work well, for development of new things.
Big things take time, and teams.
Time is supplied by people taking the long view, and making long-term plans, and teams benefit from people not stabbing each other in the back, sublimating personal goals, in favor of those of the collective, and trusting each other, and their management.
I don't want to get into an argument about religion, so I will make a different point.
There are two ways to evaluate things. One is selection: look at the options available, decide which is best, and go all in on that one. The other is to understand things as deeply as possible, what the moving parts are,what makes them tick, what the unknown possibilities might be, etc.
We as individuals have to use selection a lot of the time. You can't do only the good parts of two jobs, or marry only the good parts of two spouses. But it's also profoundly negative to be obliged to only think in those terms: for example, when citizens are told that they have no choice other than to vote for the lesser evil, it lets politicians off the hook for only being slightly less corrupt, and reduces citizens to a passive role. Ironically, those who try to shut political discussion out of HN are doing the same thing: saying "just choose, do not think".
So, while I might be interested in instances where religious people have a longer term approach, it's not interesting to me as a "plus for religion". It's interesting if it leads to understanding and new ideas. Of course, as a non-believer I would like to separate any benefits from the need to be loyal to unprovable assertions. But that's actually secondary.
I think the question becomes "how does this behavior get rewarded?".
I agree with most of this, and also have experienced the positive outcomes of people thinking ahead and sublimating short term reward for long term gain (for the collective).
However it seems antithetical to put a reward function on it so there is this catch-22 about what makes the thing "good" also makes it difficult to achieve.
> I think the question becomes "how does this behavior get rewarded?".
Good behaviour is ideally its own reward: intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation—either (monetary) reward or punishment—is (AIUI) less effective.
Fulfillment through meaningful relationships and accomplishment has been considered the basis of happiness for quite a while:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia
Wealth, honour/fame/glory, power, pleasure are not bad in themselves, but generally can be considered as means to an end of and not really ends in themselves:
* https://philolibrary.crc.nd.edu/article/key-to-happiness/
* https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2002.htm
The long term obligation for them is created by the very thing you wanted to leave out.
An uncorroborated claim of integrity is self-refuting.
> The monks likely have the time to think about implementation
The core activities is praying and working, ora et labora:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ora_et_labora
The praying is done at fixed times:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_the_Hours
With work and other activities (meals) planned around them. Nuns have a similar framework:
* https://www.franciscansisterstor.org/about/daily-schedule
I'm sure you could find "time to think" in there, but the schedule is pretty packed.
That also sound a lot like the Amish. Take the time to think about implementation, advantages, disadvantages and the societal impact of a technology, before committing to it.
They have a reputation as medieval peasants, but they are not afraid of technology. They are just extremely picky. They build furniture in factories and sell them on a website. If you want durable, it is well worth the extra price.
https://www.amishfurniturefactory.com/
It's not everyone, but thoughtful managers do think beyond themselves.
They know they will outlast some of their reports, so they're incentivized to build memory and maintainability at the levels below them.
And good managers get promoted, i.e. leave the team but stay in the company, so there's a reputational incentive to leave things in a good place for whoever comes after you. (Though this is only true at good orgs -- at bad orgs, the next person will get fully blamed for a bad handoff).
The best leaders have values that transcend their bank account, and understand their legacy depends on being able to transition effectively.
Your career and relationships transcend any single gig, and there is a dignity that people recognize in departing well, and even in making the best of a bad job. Campground rule, leave things better than you found them.
Whats is always interesting about monestic life and its emergence (minus light sabers) is that society across cultures has created spaces for people who dont fit. This need has been recognized and supported for thousands of years.
Monasteries follow strict rules. Good for those who fit these rules but monasteries are far from a place for people who don’t fit.
I may have missed something though - I don’t see how is that related to the linked article.
Fit into wider society. If someone has sensory issues, then a monastery would be a more peaceful place. Some people like set routine as well.
I guess. Some monasteries were located in busy towns, had bells, chants, animals, workshops, etc. But if you found a place that was a good fit, and the monastery didn’t dislike you for other reasons (e.g. being left handed), then yes. Otherwise there were other peaceful occupations; from highly specialized crafts to literal hermits.
And there hasn’t really been a replacement for that in modern times. This is a problem.
The place is called "the internet" today.
Worship at the altar of free software.
FWIW, "lay monasteries" and hermitages exist, and there are some religious ones which are not strict about who wants to join, the Bose monastic community[0] comes to mind talking of christianity, but there's plenty for other religions.
[0] https://www.monasterodibose.it/en/
There are still places like Slab City, California (the desert town with no laws). That kind of place is not for me though. I like neighbors who mind their own business, but I still need some amount of law and order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_City,_California
There are still plenty of religious cults out there if that is your thing, probably more than have ever been. Otherwise the "misfits" are nowdays also organizing themself to indeed fit somewhere and don't just accept to be outcasts.
Sorry, but the whole concept of "place for people who don't fit" - is really not appropriate for monasteries in general. Because they have been very strict about who can fit. Only those who are fine with this special lifestyle and fixed rituals (and fixed hierachy and dogma). And most monks had to adopt to accept, whether they liked it or not, as the alternative was starving.
Religion is one of the best at marketing and fund-raising since millenias. Why is it surprising that they adapt to new tech? They have done it for printing press before that.
Researchers discover that monks (who are actually human beings) can deliberate, adapt and problem solve. Together. Like adults. Crazy world we live in that this has been proven possible.
Well, AI is the New Messiah, and very VC backed at this point, so no surprise.
“Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer.” (If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.)
— Voltaire
I can barely figure out what this article is about because the language is like molasses.
It stands to reason that disciplined, dopamine starved monks find modern engagement economy computers and software somewhat engaging, as they are probably like recreational drugs to enquiring bored minds
I’d bet on many of them being on the spectrum. Their lives are build around a heavy prescriptive set of rules and they love it.
> In fact, forms of co-determination and decentralized responsibility that have developed over time are particularly resilient. In many monasteries, the "CEOs" are elected by the community and can be unelected at any time, and everyone is consulted on important decisions.
So do they have have a sort of executive officer for the week/month/year, with all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more important matters?
Religion was behind the spread of printed books, at least here in Europe, so this seems in line.
It was also behind unspeakable acts of massive cultural destruction, so there's that.
Oh if religion wasn't responsible for "massive cultural destruction" then mankind would have invented something else to do it (whatever is meant by "massive cultural destruction").
"We want their stuff" is a pretty effective travesty generator for sure.
I disagree. When you are absolutely sure that God itself is on your side, then there is no atrocity to big to commit. I feel that religious zeal has led to some of the worst catastrophes in human history. I would put para-religious zeal in that category too, like dogmatic forms of communism.
You can substitute "Truth", "Most Rational Action", or "Reality" in for God in your sentence and still get the same meaning.
People can and will justify almost everything.
So was the search for condiments.
The Spice must flow.
"The beauty of their women and the taste of their food made the British the best sailors in the world."
I didn't judge. I just wanted to point out that religion has a tradition of using new technologies to help spread itself.
Source? Proofs?
Do communism and secular humanism count as "religions" here?
The Crusaides and literally all of British colonialism.
Do you not know anything about history?
The Crusades and colonialism can’t be distilled down to single causes, but even if you tried, religious reasons would not be the main ones. Political and financial motivations were far bigger factors in both.
The East India Company was motivated by religion?
You'll have a hard time justifying that unless you're some sort of hardcore Jewish cryptosupremacy conspiracy theorist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_libraries
In my country most monasteries are becoming luxury hotels so yes, they are adapting remarkably well to these times.
That is not a new phenomenon, per se. The hospitality industry was shaped by monasteries, based on the Rule of St. Benedict.
[flagged]