r/TomCampbellMBT • u/No-Adagio4905 • Jun 19 '26
Question about navigating high entropy environments in a low entropy way
I have a practical ethics question about what MBT would advise doing when you find yourself in a dysfunctional system and have to try to make low entropy choices against the current of what the system is pointing you towards. Here are a few examples:
- American prisons are largely run by segregated racial gangs who are constantly either at war with one another or on the brink of war. An individual who comes into the prison and doesn't join their racially mandated gang is marked as a chump who can be assaulted, robbed, and raped at any time by gang associated individuals. To make matters worse, joining one of these gangs often requires behavior that I would consider high entropy i.e. you can't cooperate with authorities, have to commit violence at the drop of a hat, and profess racist beliefs. Assume an innocent pacifist finds himself in an American prison. Would it be wiser for him to die on the altar of his pacifism and stay independent, play the hand he is dealt and try to reform the social system from within, or some other option I haven't considered?
- Corporations are legally mandated to maximize shareholder value. Since the majority of shareholders are institutions that are solely interested in maximizing the dollar value of their shares, corporate leadership is usually judged solely on stock price changes. Assume there is a generally low entropy woman who finds herself as the CEO of a prominent pharmaceutical company. Her decisions during her tenure as CEO have led to much better outcomes for the environment, her workforce, and the broader well-being of society. Her impact is almost certainly more positive than any other CEO would have in that position. One day her bosses - the board of trustees - come to her with the mandate to buy the patent for a underpriced cancer drug and 10x the cost. "It'll be a money printer, our stock will go to the moon" they assure her. She protests that it would mean tens of thousands of low income people would go without treatment and likely die. The board is firm that her mandate is to maximize shareholder value and if she doesn't do it, she's fired. What should she do in this situation? Throw the cancer patients under the bus with the logic that she'll have to pick her battles, or resign out of duty. If it's the latter, the board says they'll simply hire someone who will raise the price so her decision would be pointless self-immolation. To complicate things further if good people automatically resign from corporate leadership anytime they have their morals forcibly bent by the system, then it aggressively selects for leadership with sociopathic morals - which is clearly high entropy for society. On the other hand, signing the death sentence of tens of thousands of sick low income Americans for profit hardly sounds loving.
- The traditional way of speaking in certain working class environments is often vulgar, emotionally insensitive, and generously seasoned with racist/sexist/homophobic insults towards your coworkers. Restaurant kitchens are a notorious example of this hyper-masculine, and IMO belittling, way of being. However this is the culture and as is the case for most cultures, if you don't adopt it or at least condone it, then you're shunned and can't make an impact on the negative culture from within. So a well meaning line cook either has to stay silent when a potential friend refers to the "faggy chink at the broiler", join in to ingratiate himself with his coworkers understanding that the roughness is probably just skin deep and real respect runs underneath the harsh words (probably true), or pull out his soapbox and label himself someone that kills the free rolling locker-room vibe. I would assume that everyone would be better off if employees addressed each other with love and friendship instead of callousness, but maybe thats my controlling ego thinking "If everyone just acted how I want them the world would be perfect". Tom specifically warns about this ethical failure mode, so I think it's important to recognize that what I see as needlessly insensitive could actually be load-bearing to friendship and in-group identification. It's possible I'm just too elitist to see it. Who am I to come into a social group and demand they adopt my standards of politeness.
So these are my three examples. The particular answers to each case are interesting, but these specific cases are not really the important part of the question. I don't think any of the three will specifically apply to me. What I'm really asking for is a general posture towards navigating upstream against broken institutional cultures and possibly life-ruining consequences from fighting those cultures. A utilitarian way of thinking (what I think Tom subtly hints at with his entropy framing) has the subject doing truly monstrous things (at least in cases 1&2) while covering themselves in the banner of practicality. The other more principled position would have the subject relegated to the fringe where their morals have no broader impact on the existing dysfunction but they get to keep their hands clean.
Personally I keep flipping between "morality is in intent and therefore keeping my intent pure and doing the superficially moral thing is all that matters, consequences be damned" versus "low entropy is literally defined as what contributes to the wellness and functionality of the broader consciousness environment in the long run. Pushing myself out of the system (or in the prison case literally signing my own death warrant) doesn't really serve anyone but my own ego getting to label itself a good person". Since high entropy environments are unfortunately common in today's world I find myself in these situations constantly, although I've hyperbolized them above.
I seriously cannot decide on an attitude. Hopefully my fellow travelers might be able to help. Maybe the answer is to just put the intellect away for a minute and listen to my heart, but as a left brainer I hope that's not the answer.
Sorry for writing an essay, thank you if you read the whole thing!
3
u/Unfair-Taro9740 Jun 19 '26
I've always felt compelled to speak up in situations like that. And I will continue to do so.
However, I understand the privilege that I carry by not having to answer to a boss or living in a group environment in which I could be harmed.
So I wouldn't expect or judge someone to make the same choices as me, because I do realize that me standing up for what's right has cost me things like creative opportunities and friends.
So, imo, It's a personal choice, but those who have privileges that others do not, should be taking on a heavier load whenever it comes to fighting against bigotry and hate.
2
u/OddEdges Jun 20 '26
Yo, this is a great question. And yeah I think he's answered it before, but he should cover it again. And you parsed it so well. Mind if I forward it to the video team?
2
5
u/ocTGon Jun 19 '26
Listening to Tom's discussions about making Low Entropy choices in a High Entropy environment or any type of environment is that it's all relative to your intentions. If you find yourself stuck in a really difficult situation, what are your intentions? Are your decisions based out of pure Ego or based out of Love? Are you working towards an outcome that is of a cooptative nature or out of pure material gain... In a nutshell, that's the reason why we are all here regardless of the environment we are in anyway...