Perspective chauvinism: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1: Line 1:
{{A|g|''The [[JC]]'s very own coinages {{tm}}''</ref>}}The fallacy of judging obsolete tricks, technologies or ideologies by the standards of the prevailing orthodoxy — evaluation criteria that, [[Q.E.D.]], weren’t relevant when the old technologies were in fashion.
{{A|g|''The [[JC]]'s very own coinages {{tm}}''</br>}}The fallacy of judging obsolete tricks, technologies or ideologies by the standards of the prevailing orthodoxy — evaluation criteria that, [[Q.E.D.]], weren’t relevant when the old technologies were in fashion.


Judged by such an arbitrary standard, outmoded technologies will, the older they get, necessarily seem more and more primitive and useless - the history of design will seem to lead inexorably to right here, right now. This in turn will create the impression, not easily dispelled, that human progress has been slow, steady, relentless march towards a perfect ideal, and our current place is simply the closest we have yet got.
Judged by such an arbitrary standard, outmoded technologies will, the older they get, necessarily seem more and more primitive and useless - the history of design will seem to lead inexorably to right here, right now. This in turn will create the impression, not easily dispelled, that human progress has been slow, steady, relentless march towards a perfect ideal, and our current place is simply the closest we have yet got.

Revision as of 21:31, 15 November 2019

The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary
The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™

The JC's very own coinages ™

Index — Click the ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

The fallacy of judging obsolete tricks, technologies or ideologies by the standards of the prevailing orthodoxy — evaluation criteria that, Q.E.D., weren’t relevant when the old technologies were in fashion.

Judged by such an arbitrary standard, outmoded technologies will, the older they get, necessarily seem more and more primitive and useless - the history of design will seem to lead inexorably to right here, right now. This in turn will create the impression, not easily dispelled, that human progress has been slow, steady, relentless march towards a perfect ideal, and our current place is simply the closest we have yet got.

But this is not the lesson of evolution. The environment changes dynamically and capriciously, and by survival of the fittest, the prevailing community adapts to it. We are part of the environment, and as we change, so does the environment, and fitness criteria shift. But not in any particular direction. Evolution develops away from a former state, not towards one.

So it isn't that we are progressing ever more quickly onward, but the place whence we have come falls exponentially further away as our technology meanders, like a perpetually deflating balloon, through design space. Our rate of progress doesn't change; our discarded technologies simply seem more and more irrelevant through time.

See also