82,975
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
===The opposite of one good idea can be ''another'' good idea=== | ===The opposite of one good idea can be ''another'' good idea=== | ||
The idea that there even ''is'' a single right answer, let alone that you ''know it'', hails from a profoundly deterministic, reductionist world view. If you subscribe to this view, and you believe you have the right answer, then ''any other answer is necessarily sub-optimal, therefore wrong, and therefore you are objectively justified in suppressing it''. The benign view (which Sutherland takes) is the “[[no-one got fired for hiring IBM]]” approach: I took the correct, rational path, I was objective, so ''[[I | The idea that there even ''is'' a single right answer, let alone that you ''know it'', hails from a profoundly [[deterministic]], [[reductionist]] world view. If you subscribe to this view, and you believe you have the right answer, then ''any other answer is necessarily sub-optimal, therefore wrong, and therefore you are objectively justified in suppressing it''. The benign view (which Sutherland takes) is the “[[no-one got fired for hiring IBM]]” approach: I took the correct, rational path, I was objective, so ''[[I can’t be blamed should things go wrong]]''. | ||
But isn’t that a depressing, negative, glass-almost-empty disposition to take to your work? “We are but actors, all the world’s a stage, we are but frozen in the starlight and determined by events; we cannot influence outcomes, so our dearest aspiration is ''not to be blamed''”? | |||
Especially since, if you adopt this view, ''no-one can be blamed for ''anything'', anyway, since on a [[deterministic]] reading the outcome of the universe in every particular was set in stone from the original [[singularity]]''? | |||
As Sutherland says, “that’s wonderful if you want to keep your job; if you want to have an original idea it’s potentially disastrous.” | |||
Is it not more rewarding to think that not only ''can'' you influence outcomes, but that ''this is your sacred quest''? [[Chatbot]]s cannot do this, folks. This is your [[spidey-sense]]. | Is it not more rewarding to think that not only ''can'' you influence outcomes, but that ''this is your sacred quest''? [[Chatbot]]s cannot do this, folks. This is your [[spidey-sense]]. | ||
Line 16: | Line 20: | ||
Secondly, the proxy for the average, the median, is the ''[[Mediocre you|mediocre]]''. | Secondly, the proxy for the average, the median, is the ''[[Mediocre you|mediocre]]''. | ||
Thirdly, on the presumption, right or wrong, that the average is where you find the most people, the average is the point every other bastard is targeting too. As {{author|Cixin Liu}} put it, “In the cosmos, no matter how fast you are, someone will be faster; no matter how slow you are, someone will be slower.”<ref>{{br|Death’s End}}, Part V.</ref> For our purposes, the average is the cosmos. | Thirdly, on the presumption, right or wrong, that the average is where you find the most people, the average is the point every other bastard is targeting too. As {{author|Cixin Liu}} put it, “In the cosmos, no matter how fast you are, someone will be faster; no matter how slow you are, someone will be slower.”<ref>{{br|Death’s End}}, Part V.</ref> For our purposes, the average is the cosmos. Per {{author|Anita Elberse}} there is a contraflow in the market system that militates against the long tail: the [[Blockbusters: Why Big Hits - and Big Risks - Are the Future of the Entertainment Business - Book Review|blockbuster effect]]: everyone is aiming at the volume end of their realistic segment of the market. (Elberse’s prescription is to go with it; Sutherland’s is to ''defy'' it.) | ||
===Don’t be logical | ===Don’t be logical when everyone else is being logical=== | ||
This is a corollary of designing for the average. To be logical is to be predictable. To prioritise logic is to converge on the same spot that all your (logic-prioritising) competitors are converging, and leaving the rest of design-space to the unconventional thinkers. While you and your fellow bald men race to the bottom in a fight over the same comb, someone else is eating all the pudding you didn’t have the imagination to see. It is to see the world as [[mediocristan]], obeying a [[normal distribution]], and able to be navigated by probabilities, which are better calculated by machine than human. | This is a corollary of designing for the average. To be logical is to be predictable. To prioritise logic is to converge on the same spot that all your (logic-prioritising) competitors are converging, and leaving the rest of design-space to the unconventional thinkers. While you and your fellow bald men race to the bottom in a fight over the same comb, someone else is eating all the pudding you didn’t have the imagination to see. It is to see the world as [[mediocristan]], obeying a [[normal distribution]], and able to be navigated by probabilities, which are better calculated by machine than human. | ||