On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Jim Grisanzio <jim.grisan...@sun.com> wrote: > Raul wrote: >> >> Yep, was fun reading... There's this analogy in ThinkerToys: >> >> http://books.google.com/books?id=5ozm2lpj05QC&pg=PA51 >> >> <quote> >> Imagine a cage containing five monkeys. > > ... > > Good story. I certainly know a few of those monkeys (and a few veterinarians > studying real monkeys too). But I suppose we all have the ability of acting > like those monkeys from time to time even if we are consciously aware of the > issue and try to disrupt the process. I think that's a strong point of the > article, that our reactions are hardwired to at least a certain degree. > Catching (and adjusting) our own narrow agendas is cool, but what about what > we genuinely miss? And how much are we missing on any given day. Probably > more than we are comfortable with.
Playing devil's advocate somewhat, there's a cost as well as a potential pay-off to not just playing along. Think of the willing-to-be-a-rebel monkey 100 years later. "What's the real deal?" the monkey asks. To find out, they have to apply intellectual thought to get to a point of enquiry and then likely have cunning and/or bravely to get any actual answers - e.g. by climbing to the top despite the barrage and then by having the conviction to say "but the banana was lovely and the only downside was you unnecessarily beating me" whilst everyone is stuck in the firm paradigm which demands threatening anyone questioning The Truth. Even at the individual level instead, it's not just broken to be town. There's a balance between taking advantage of your beliefs so you can focus on action (imagine doing all your maths from first principals rather than relying on say 1+1=2) and questioning your beliefs in case your direction/actions are poor. A friend floored me recently with her approach. I know her as very sure of her (core) beliefs. She let up. Once every year or two she has a bout of introspection where she re-aligns. Interesting approach at trying to find the best of both worlds. With regards to the article - I very much enjoyed reading it at one level but there was a niggling irritation at another, and a friend captured it interestingly. Namely: it reads a bit like Gladwell. <digs out chat transcript:> [06/01/2010 17:09:03] Morgan Friedman: notice how this is written in a total gladwellian style? [06/01/2010 17:09:13] manarh: yeah [06/01/2010 17:09:17] manarh: I find that irritating personally [06/01/2010 17:09:42] manarh: didn't peg it as gladwellian - but I find them both irritating and when you mentioned it... it's for similar reasons. [06/01/2010 17:10:20] manarh: Emotional pull to allow mostly good points on interesting topics to be made powerfully but I think with weaknesses in accuracy. [06/01/2010 17:10:23] manarh: If that makes sense. [06/01/2010 17:10:27] Morgan Friedman: agreed 100% [06/01/2010 17:10:29] manarh: Feels dangerous [06/01/2010 17:10:48] Morgan Friedman: gladwell writes so well that he convinces you of what he's saying, even if he may not be right. the perils of writing too well. [an example of what I thought was "inaccurate" was how Kuhn was first cited - as distinct from the later citing which was quoted in this thread. In the first I felt Kuhn was misrepresented, though the second citing redressed that (with consequent minor loss of coherence, IMHO, to article)] Right, I'm in danger of going off on my spiel connecting architecture with paradigms with emergence with the law and organisational values.... oops, nearly! ;). m
