Template:M intro design Metis: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Template:M intro design Metis (view source)

Revision as of 10:43, 15 November 2023

255 bytes added , 15 November 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,900

edits

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 :—John Paul Getty (''attrib.'')}}
 {{d|Metis|/ˈmiːtɪs/|n|}}
-A coinage from {{author|James C. Scott}}’s magnificent {{br|Seeing Like A State}}, metis is hard to describe — the Greek word “Μῆτις” combined folk wisdom, knowhow, Odyssean cunning — but in the corporate world it most resembles ''[[subject matter expertise]]''. Ingenuity, problem-solving, lateral thinking; smarts for figuring out what to do on the fly if you are in a jam.
+Accumulated ''[[heurism]]''. A coinage from {{author|James C. Scott}}’s magnificent {{br|Seeing Like A State}}, metis is hard to describe — the Ancient Greek concept of “Μῆτις” combined folk wisdom, knowhow, Odyssean cunning — but in the corporate world it most resembles ''[[subject matter expertise]]''. Experience, ingenuity, problem-solving, lateral thinking; smarts for figuring out what to do on the fly if you are in a jam.
 Μῆτις was also one of the sea-nymphs, who became some kind of deity associated with wisdom, deep thought, and magical cunning. Which is nice.
- picked up in the early exchanges of {{author|Allen Farrington}}’s {{br|Bitcoin Is Venice}} is that of the difference of “[[metis]]” — knowhow, experience, wisdom, accumulated ''[[heurism]]'' — what we call ''[[subject matter expertise]]'', and which stands in distinction to — in forlorn ''defiance'' of — [[high modernism]] which solves everything at scale, by abstract model referencing the homogenised general and not the intricate particular.
+{{author|Allen Farrington}} picks up Scott’s formulation of “[[metis]]” in the early exchanges of  {{br|Bitcoin Is Venice}} and notes how it  stands in distinction to — in forlorn ''defiance'' of — [[high modernism]] which solves everything at scale, by abstract model referencing homogenised ''generalities'' in preference to the intricate, and inconvenient, ''particular''.
-The difference between the top-down [[averagarianism|averagarian]] view and the [[subject matter expert]]’s view. The administrator knows that the portfolio risk is, say 5 percent and succeeds it she can “manage the portfolio” to suffer a risk of less than 5 percent — which she may do by ''changing'' the portfolio to remove what she sees as the high-risk instruments — whereas an individual risk manager manages a single instrument with a given risk of 5 percent and succeeds if she can avoid that risk altogether. For the individual risk manager, there is no 5 percent loss. The loss is either nil or 100%.
+This is the difference between a top-down, [[averagarian]], view of the world, where everything is rendered roughly into broad categories and the challenge is achieving ''scale''. and the [[subject matter expert]]’s view, where difficulty presents as ''idiosyncrasy''.
+The administrator knows that the portfolio “risk” for a given period is, say, 5 percent. She succeeds if she can “manage the portfolio” over the period to suffer an overall actual loss of less than that. <ref>This she may do by ''changing'' the portfolio to remove what she sees as the high-risk instruments. But this is to manage to the number, not to manage the portfolio.</ref>
+An individual risk manager manages a single instrument with a given risk of 5 percent and succeeds if she can avoid that risk altogether. For the individual risk manager, there is no 5 percent loss. The loss is either nil or 100%.
 A portfolio with 100 managers each managing a single instrument for which they are fully responsible throughout its life will lead to different decisions throughout the life of each instrument. Including the decision to invest in the first place.