83,584
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
There was just one casualty: a brand new Oldsmobile Regency 98, flattened by a hunk of blubber the size of a truck tyre. It was Umenhofer’s brand new car. A whale of a deal, indeed. | There was just one casualty: a brand new Oldsmobile Regency 98, flattened by a hunk of blubber the size of a truck tyre. It was Umenhofer’s brand new car. A whale of a deal, indeed. | ||
===Contra the hive mind: homogeneity as a good thing=== | ===Contra the hive mind: homogeneity as a good thing=== | ||
[[Thought leader]]s may declare that there are cases where ''[[heterogeneity]]'' — contrarianism to you, dear reader — is a bad thing. | [[Thought leader]]s may declare that there are cases where ''[[heterogeneity]]'' — contrarianism to you, dear reader — is a bad thing. “''Homo''geneity is important to bind your people to a common purpose and vision,” these people will say. [[Heterogeneity|''Hetero''geneity]] can weaken and undermine that sacred, fragile flame. | ||
We happy heterogeneticists would beg to differ. The problem in our darkened times, is quite the opposite: a hive mind stampeding after shiny but quixotic ideas: | We [[Jolly Contrarian|happy heterogeneticists]] would beg to differ. The problem in our darkened times, is quite the opposite: a hive mind stampeding after shiny but quixotic ideas: [[Cryptocurrency|cryptocurrencies]], [[non-fungible token]]s, [[AI]], [[ESG]] and [[critical theory]], some of which (particularly [[critical theory]]) are engineered — ironically enough — to ''quash'' contrary voices. There is very little “wacky contrarian” risk. Minority contrarians can’t hurt you. Fashionable [[yogababble]] ''can''. | ||
Now: heterogeneity fails only when it produces ''incontrovertibly'' stupid or pernicious ideas — that cannot be quickly assessed and, if need be, rejected on their merits. In a [[wicked]] environment there are very few of these, and in a “tame” — closed, bounded, fully understood — environment they are easy to dismiss: in a game of football, the undoubtedly heterogeneous idea to pick up the ball is stupid and no-one will do it. ''But'' even there … well, just ask William Webb Ellis whether it was a stupid idea to pick up the ball and run with it. | Now: heterogeneity fails only when it produces ''incontrovertibly'' stupid or pernicious ideas — that cannot be quickly assessed and, if need be, rejected on their merits. In a [[wicked]] environment there are very few of these, and in a “tame” — closed, bounded, fully understood — environment they are easy to dismiss: in a game of football, the undoubtedly heterogeneous idea to pick up the ball is stupid and no-one will do it. ''But'' even there … well, just ask William Webb Ellis whether it was a stupid idea to pick up the ball and run with it.<ref>Understood this is, largely, apocryphal.</ref> | ||
Situations where the consensus view is so unarguably right that there’s no scope to challenge it are | Situations where the consensus view is so unarguably right that there’s no scope to challenge it are as good as non-existent in commerce. Many of the our great crises of the past have come out of apparently sensible homogeneous consensus, and in the face of a small, vocal, but ignored heteregenous dissent. [[LIBOR]]. The [[global financial crisis]]. [[Madoff]]. [[Enron]]. [[FTX]]. | ||
We operate in a [[Zero-sum game|non zero-sum]], not-bounded, incomplete, ambiguous environment it is hard to see how having ''some'' level of dissent doesn’t put you in a better place. | We operate in a [[Zero-sum game|non zero-sum]], not-bounded, incomplete, ambiguous environment it is hard to see how having ''some'' level of dissent doesn’t put you in a better place. |