82,891
edits
Pace layering: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The topmost level, “fashion” is ephemeral, random, dynamic, fluctuating, noisy — in the sense of “loud” and in the sense of “obscuring signal” — but even this can effect the adjacent layers if persistent through time. | The topmost level, “fashion” is ephemeral, random, dynamic, fluctuating, noisy — in the sense of “loud” and in the sense of “obscuring signal” — but even this can effect the adjacent layers if persistent through time. | ||
The intermediate layers (from the bottom up culture, governance, infrastructure, commerce) are increasingly localised, flexible, changeable, and their constituencies increasingly fluid and hard to pin down. Nature affects a species, Culture affects a people, governance a nation, infrastructure a city, business a market and fashion whoever likes it. The fastest layers are the most innovative:the slowest are the most stable | The intermediate layers (from the bottom up culture, governance, infrastructure, commerce) are increasingly localised, flexible, changeable, and their constituencies increasingly fluid and hard to pin down. Nature affects a species, Culture affects a people, governance a nation, infrastructure a city, business a market and fashion whoever likes it. The fastest layers are the most innovative:the slowest are the most stable. | ||
{{Quote|''“Fast learns, slow remembers. Fast proposes, slow disposes. Fast is discontinuous, slow is continuous. Fast and small instructs slow and big by accrued innovation and by occasional revolution. Slow and big controls small and fast by constraint and constancy. Fast gets all our attention, slow has all the power.”''}} | |||
So to understand how deep and persistent a system effect is and how fixable it is, consider the level are which it presents. A local gang conflict can fix easily, a religious grievance won't. | So to understand how deep and persistent a system effect is and how fixable it is, consider the level are which it presents. A local gang conflict can fix easily, a religious grievance won't. | ||
If an issue presents as a matter of fashion but proves inexplicably resistant to change, it may be an indication that it is really operates at a deeper level. | |||
Why don't lawyers adopt [[plain English]]? Why is legal technology? If we regard as a matter of professional preference what is actually deep articulation of the [[agency problem]], and a requirement of the [[power structure]] (the “legal paradigm” depends on punters believing what lawyers so is all tremendously complicated and difficult) — then trying to change that through peer pressure within that power structure will not work. The challenge may come at a cc deeper level, and from someone necessarily ''outside'' the paradigm, providing an imagined alternative to users of the services that those within the paradigm can’t see. | |||
This is a good on the paradigm. It's not just how deeply buried the assumption, but it's layer. | This is a good on the paradigm. It's not just how deeply buried the assumption, but it's layer. | ||
{{Ref}} | {{Ref}} | ||