82,853
edits
Paradigm failure: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{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. | {{a|devil|}}{{quote|I can explain nothing to you unless I first draw your attention to patent inadequacies in your knowledge: discontinuities in the relations between objects, or the presence of anomalies you cannot account for by any of the laws known to you. You will remain deaf to my explanations until you suspect yourself of falsehood. | ||
:—{{author|James P. Carse}} {{br|Finite and Infinite Games}}}}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, 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
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. | 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}} | ||