Paradigm failure: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{a|devil|}}Something one should understand about power structures and other paradigms is that they collapse not because they are degenerating, but because a ''better'..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil|}}Something | {{a|devil|}}Something to understand about [[power structure]]s and other [[paradigm]]s is that they collapse not necessarily because they are degenerating, but because a ''better'' power structure has become available. This is where the theoretical appeal of {{author|Karl Popper}}’s [[Falsification]]ism hit the buffers of real-life behavioural psychology, and why {{author|Thomas Kuhn}}’s account of [[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions|scientific revolutions]] is more nuanced. | ||
So, those who would cast a poor political leader out, first | So, those who would cast a poor political leader out, must first present a robust and plausible alternative — ideally a ''group'' — that can [[Shift the axis of dispute|shift the axis of the debate]] and provide a preferable alternative (it is ''not'' about doing a better job, but re-framing the debate altogether). Where a poor political leader has been defenestrated and replaced by someone simply claiming to be able to do a better job, the results are often underwhelming, and the political movement remains broken and susceptible to replacement. | ||
That said, as a defensive strategy, incumbents should surround themselves with people who can exercise on the plan but do ''not'' have the gumption or charisma to re-frame the narrative, and who do not therefore present a plausible alternative. At least require someone to have the imagination to reframe things entirely. | |||
{{author|James P Carse}}’s idea of [[finite game|finite]] and [[infinite game]]s throws light here: replacing an incumbent with a like-for-like replacement is a combative strategy from a finite game: the rules remain the same, the boundaries are fixed; there will be a winner and a loser. Reframing the narrative is a “poetic” act of imagination that changes the rules, identifies new objectives and allows the co-operative endeavour (a polity) to continue: this is an infinite game strategy. | |||
Employers: remember, the reason employees stay is the | Politicians who have successfully re-framed the narrative (for better or worse): Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s New Labour; [[David Lange]]’s Fourth Labour government in New Zealand; Donald Trump’s presidency of the United States. Note that each of these movements eventually foundered when it lost its aspiration to challenge and imagine a better future, and descended into a [[finite game]]-style battle within the movement to exert influence and usurp power. | ||
Employers: remember, the reason employees stay is the not because you are not failing at the task of providing meaningful, rewarding work, but because no-one yet has re-framed the work proposition for that employee. As long as ''you'' continually reframe the work proposition, imaginatively challenging the employee, she will not be inclined to look elsewhere. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*{{br|Finite and Infinite Games}} | |||
*[[Paradigm]] | *[[Paradigm]] | ||
*[[Power structure]] | *[[Power structure]] | ||
*[[Falsification]] | *[[Falsification]] | ||
*{{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} | *{{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} | ||
Revision as of 16:48, 14 February 2022
|
Something to understand about power structures and other paradigms is that they collapse not necessarily because they are degenerating, but because a better power structure has become available. This is where the theoretical appeal of Karl Popper’s Falsificationism hit the buffers of real-life behavioural psychology, and why Thomas Kuhn’s account of scientific revolutions is more nuanced.
So, those who would cast a poor political leader out, must first present a robust and plausible alternative — ideally a group — that can shift the axis of the debate and provide a preferable alternative (it is not about doing a better job, but re-framing the debate altogether). Where a poor political leader has been defenestrated and replaced by someone simply claiming to be able to do a better job, the results are often underwhelming, and the political movement remains broken and susceptible to replacement.
That said, as a defensive strategy, incumbents should surround themselves with people who can exercise on the plan but do not have the gumption or charisma to re-frame the narrative, and who do not therefore present a plausible alternative. At least require someone to have the imagination to reframe things entirely.
James P Carse’s idea of finite and infinite games throws light here: replacing an incumbent with a like-for-like replacement is a combative strategy from a finite game: the rules remain the same, the boundaries are fixed; there will be a winner and a loser. Reframing the narrative is a “poetic” act of imagination that changes the rules, identifies new objectives and allows the co-operative endeavour (a polity) to continue: this is an infinite game strategy.
Politicians who have successfully re-framed the narrative (for better or worse): Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s New Labour; David Lange’s Fourth Labour government in New Zealand; Donald Trump’s presidency of the United States. Note that each of these movements eventually foundered when it lost its aspiration to challenge and imagine a better future, and descended into a finite game-style battle within the movement to exert influence and usurp power.
Employers: remember, the reason employees stay is the not because you are not failing at the task of providing meaningful, rewarding work, but because no-one yet has re-framed the work proposition for that employee. As long as you continually reframe the work proposition, imaginatively challenging the employee, she will not be inclined to look elsewhere.