Introduction: The Embedded Nature of Inefficiency in Society

Throughout history, societies have demonstrated a paradoxical tendency: rather than actively eliminating inefficiencies, they integrate them into their operational structures. Governments, economies, and institutions do not necessarily fail due to incompetence or malice; instead, they adapt to dysfunctional elements, embedding inefficiency into their long-term stability. This phenomenon, termed Social Normalization Theory (SNT), suggests that inefficiency persists because cognitive limitations make structural overhaul prohibitively difficult.

Attempts to impose rational order on chaotic systems often yield paradoxical consequences, a concept explored through Absurdity Theory (AT). Even when leaders and reformers genuinely seek efficiency, systemic inertia, entrenched biases, and flawed heuristics ensure that dysfunction not only persists but becomes an inseparable aspect of the system itself. This essay explores how cognitive biases reinforce normalization, how rational interventions produce absurd outcomes, and how the prospect of AI-driven governance could both improve and entrench inefficiencies in new forms.

The Mechanics of Social Normalization Theory (SNT)

Cognitive Limitations as the Driving Force of Normalization

At the heart of Social Normalization Theory (SNT) is cognitive limitation—the fundamental constraint shaping human and institutional decision-making. Rather than processing complex systemic problems optimally, societies and individuals rely on simplified heuristics, rigid bureaucratic routines, and familiar structures to minimize cognitive strain. This preference for low-effort processing ensures that institutions adapt to inefficiencies rather than eliminating them.

This phenomenon unfolds in several ways:

1. Complexity Reduction → Social, political, and economic structures trend toward simplification, favoring broad, digestible frameworks over nuanced governance.
2. Institutional Inertia → Bureaucracies resist fundamental change, as cognitive overload discourages radical restructuring efforts.
3. Social Acceptance Over Resistance → Conformity arises not from fear but from the mental ease of integrating into a flawed system rather than challenging it.
4. Absorption of Dysfunction → Political and economic entities do not reject inefficiencies; they embed them into their operations, making dysfunction part of their functional equilibrium.

These mechanisms ensure that inefficiency does not lead to collapse but instead becomes a stable feature of governance and economic systems.

Cognitive Biases as the Psychological Basis for Normalization

Cognitive biases play a crucial role in ensuring that inefficiencies become embedded rather than eliminated.

1. Complexity Reduction
   • Anchoring Effect → Early institutional assumptions shape long-term policies, even when outdated.
   • Mere Exposure Effect → Repeated exposure to flawed systems normalizes their inefficiencies.
   • Authority Bias → Deference to perceived experts reinforces entrenched structures.
2. Institutional Inertia
   • Confirmation Bias → Bureaucracies filter out data that contradicts their established models.
   • Cognitive Dissonance → Contradictions are rationalized instead of being addressed.
   • Status Quo Bias → Resistance to change keeps inefficient structures intact.
3. Social Acceptance Over Resistance
   • Groupthink → Individuals conform to dominant narratives, reinforcing systemic inefficiencies.
   • Bandwagon Effect → Popularity validates flawed economic or political policies.
   • Loss Aversion → Fear of destabilization discourages structural reform.
4. Absorption of Dysfunction
   • Illusory Superiority → Decision-makers assume their expertise extends into areas where they lack competence.
   • Processing Speed Limitations → Governance systems struggle to adapt to new information in real time.
   • Memory Constraints → The inability to retain complex systemic critiques leads to simplistic policymaking.

These cognitive biases ensure that absurd inefficiencies persist despite widespread acknowledgment of their dysfunction.

Populist Revolt Against Inefficiency: The French Revolution

One of the clearest examples of populist reactionism against inefficient governance is the French Revolution (1789-1799). France’s monarchy, facing economic crisis, tax inequities, and bureaucratic failure, resisted structural reform, leading to populist backlash.

The monarchy’s reliance on oversimplified taxation schemes, its institutional resistance to reform, and the social normalization of aristocratic privilege ensured that inefficiency persisted until revolutionary forces dismantled the system. Much like today’s reactionary movements against neoliberal economic contradictions, the French Revolution exemplifies how normalization produces absurd consequences when pressures become unsustainable.

Absurdity Theory (AT): The Paradox of Governance

If Social Normalization Theory explains the persistence of inefficiency, then Absurdity Theory (AT) reveals its unintended consequences. AT explores how rational attempts to impose order on chaotic systems frequently exacerbate contradictions rather than solving them. Many from the information technology sector, believing in technological and market-driven solutions to societal problems, are at risk of increasing systemic contradictions by overestimating their expertise in social and economic policy. To them the world is a computer program that can be debugged, updated, and rebooted as needed.

For example:

• Neoliberalism, intended to promote free markets, normalized corporate monopolization and economic consolidation.
• DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) aimed to streamline governance but resulted in mass confusion and bureaucratic entanglements.
• Robert McNamara and his systems analysis approach to the conflict in Vietnam in the 1960s provided false metrics of success that promoted American involvement until the facts were incontrovertible, when the forces of North Vietnam overran the U.S. embassy in Saigon. Government policy doesn’t get less dysfunctional than that.

In each case, leaders sought efficiency, but the actual outcomes reinforced the dysfunction they intended to eliminate.

Accelerationism & Systemic Disruption

Accelerationism is a recent ideology accepted by both the left and the right. As the name implies, its proponents argue that intensifying existing trends can force necessary systemic evolution. However, such an extremist strategy will likely deepen the contradictions identified by Absurdity Theory because it doesn’t address the fundamental cognitive limitations of the human mind.

Believing that economic expertise translates into sociological mastery, accelerationists push reforms without accounting for long-term institutional inertia. Their interventions may reinforce the very inefficiencies they aim to disrupt. Accelerationism is akin to Libertarianism because it represents a theoretical model, rather offering practical solutions to the problems confronting political economies. It is thus another weapon in the arsenal of stupidity that can only lead to absurd results.

Upending an economy without understanding its operation is like shooting at a shadow in your home at night; it might be your spouse or a guest doing something you hadn’t foreseen. When applied to a society it can only contribute to dysfunction and make matters worse. However, we haven’t suffered its consequences yet. Is this in out future?

AI’s Role in Government Restructuring

Nations around the world have tried many strategies to address society’s needs through structural reforms such as Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, and hybrids such as implemented in China today. None of these has been successful as external pressure and internal inefficiencies have led to a global debt crisis for the great powers. The United States and China are facing irreconcilable social and fiscal problems that threaten to destabilize the world order within the decade, yet they continue to muddle on. Are there viable alternatives?

I mentioned one above–Accelerationism. Another untested approach is the use of Artificial Intelligence. AI has the potential to optimize bureaucratic functions, thus reducing redundancies and improving data-driven policy decisions. However, entrenched political structures may resist AI-driven governance, fearing transparency and loss of elite control.

While AI could address complexity reduction and eliminate some forms of institutional inertia, its implementation might recreate inefficiencies in new ways, reinforcing algorithmic biases and consolidating decision-making into opaque, technocratic systems.

Conclusion: The Future of Governance and Systemic Persistence

Social Normalization Theory and Absurdity Theory together suggest that governments, economies, and institutions do not fail outright—they evolve by absorbing inefficiencies rather than eliminating them. Cognitive biases ensure that flawed systems persist, and attempts at rational governance often produce paradoxical consequences. Is this the best we can do?

Pushing our political economies into crises, as espoused in various forms of Accelerationism is like playing chicken with a train. That scenario isn’t too different from the French Revolution, and we saw how that turned out. If global violence is to be avoided, we must seek technological solutions–but not in a desperate gasp as if the clock was ticking. We shouldn’t count on a myriad of advances across scientific and engineering fields to appear simultaneously.

Artificial Intelligence could serve as a potential corrective force, one that doesn’t rely on unforeseeable, multidisciplinary technological breakthroughs. We understand it fairly well. However, without intentional safeguards, it may normalize inefficiencies in new forms.

Unfortunately, history suggests that governments will continue adapting to dysfunction rather than eliminating it, making systemic reform possible only through crisis, external disruption, or radical restructuring.

I prefer the risk of a Brave New World to the certainty of global thermonuclear war…

Final Thoughts

CoPilot was an invaluable assistant on this work, but I had to do some editing on the final product. That’s primarily my fault because I introduced a complex topic at the last minute, while keeping the word limit to 1000 words. This is a brief treatment of a difficult subject, but reading the previous essays will clear up a lot of questions the reader might have. This is an ongoing conversation with an unbiased entity who is my assistant. I am enjoying working with CoPilot, and look forward to further collaboration in the future.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it…