Huh, I’d noticed the ratchet effect before in a few different subjects, but I hadn’t heard of it specifically. I think you hit the nail on the head, thanks for helping me learn something today.
Before finding that article, I thought it was mainly a political term. But the article doesn’t even mention it’s application to politics. That’s the only context I’ve heard it in.
To me, it seems like a possible manifestation of the sunk cost fallacy. I’ve personally seen it in IT security audits and policy rollouts. As you try to make a domain more secure via more aggressive group policy rules, more authoritarian approaches become more acceptable than when you started. Part of it is a sunk cost of “well, if we don’t take this more aggressive stance, all of our previous work could be undone.” mixed with a sentiment of “We are already blocking users from accessing x service, why not also block y service”. Blocking y service would have been unpopular before service x was blocked, but now there’s something more acceptable that you can point at as justification. This process just repeats further and further until you’re essentially blocking everything and selectively allowing services.
I’m sure I’ve noticed it elsewhere, but that’s one example that I have encountered quite a few times.
Huh, I’d noticed the ratchet effect before in a few different subjects, but I hadn’t heard of it specifically. I think you hit the nail on the head, thanks for helping me learn something today.
Before finding that article, I thought it was mainly a political term. But the article doesn’t even mention it’s application to politics. That’s the only context I’ve heard it in.
To me, it seems like a possible manifestation of the sunk cost fallacy. I’ve personally seen it in IT security audits and policy rollouts. As you try to make a domain more secure via more aggressive group policy rules, more authoritarian approaches become more acceptable than when you started. Part of it is a sunk cost of “well, if we don’t take this more aggressive stance, all of our previous work could be undone.” mixed with a sentiment of “We are already blocking users from accessing x service, why not also block y service”. Blocking y service would have been unpopular before service x was blocked, but now there’s something more acceptable that you can point at as justification. This process just repeats further and further until you’re essentially blocking everything and selectively allowing services.
I’m sure I’ve noticed it elsewhere, but that’s one example that I have encountered quite a few times.