Post by Hercules on Jun 4, 2018 9:49:57 GMT
I think the perfect storm theory is a cop out. The theory was in play just after the movie by the same name. If something was caused by a multi-tude of factors then they said it was caused by the perfect storm.
I have always been more partial to single variable explanations for each event that passes. As such I got a B minus on my verbal exam in my MBA. He said my answers weren't rich enough and didn't discuss the possibility of other explanations existing. Instead I had just presented my insight as being the answer and not entertaining any other suppositions.
I think there is an inherent bias to towards complexity as the explanations behind the things that we do or say each day. Jordan Peterson often sometimes brazenly presents a simple naked reason for an explanation but then quickly withdraws it by saying "But of course" the real answer for our behaviours are more sophisticated that what I have proposed. Yet are they?
I took to writing a journal once. And what happens is you often go over the same things that are troubling you each day. As you keep re-writing your material you become less verbose and more simplistic with your motives for all concerned. Yet despite becoming more simplistic no truth is lost. No accuracy is lost.
Case in point when I stayed on Campus for my MBA I noticed that many people were standoffish or even rude to the foreign students. A fellow foreign student confided a similar point to me in a conversation and I responded quickly with a rather unsophisticated comment "But everyone is like that at first". He nodded his head and accepted it. I have always wondered if I should have said it in a more roundabout way or introduced several possible answers for him. After deliberating on this I decided my insight was cutting and that there is simply was no put adding any nuances to it.
I think however for the proletariat academic who has a little but but not much education - they wouldn't have been happy with my answer and would have much preferred being told "I think its complicated". And perhaps I could have even used those exact words and then the other party would have nodded his head sagely and continued forward on the understanding he had been involved in some type of high powered conversation.
I heard the most remarkable description of a Fool the other day from William Shakespeare's writings. A fool is someone who routinely tries to outwit and outthink someone of higher social and or academic standing themselves.
The fools of this world are quite taken with the answer, because "its complex" or because "its the perfect storm of a lot of reasons".
When I was 7 I realised I was not the smartest kid in the class. But I realised I could be more successful than the smartest kid because was aloof and noone understood him while I was a popularist (as much as a 7 year old can be) and could make both his ideas and my ideas accessible and consumable.
I have lost that skill now. Making my ideas consumable. I feel like the aloof guy in the corner some days and yet on other days I don't feel alone. When I spot other people who are prepared to take a stand academically and nail down a complex issue to being caused by one predominant factor then I don't feel by myself. Piercing insights impress me. Sophistication of thought does not. Saying something is caused by a perfect storm of reasons is intellectually lazy and it displeases me.
What say you?
I have always been more partial to single variable explanations for each event that passes. As such I got a B minus on my verbal exam in my MBA. He said my answers weren't rich enough and didn't discuss the possibility of other explanations existing. Instead I had just presented my insight as being the answer and not entertaining any other suppositions.
I think there is an inherent bias to towards complexity as the explanations behind the things that we do or say each day. Jordan Peterson often sometimes brazenly presents a simple naked reason for an explanation but then quickly withdraws it by saying "But of course" the real answer for our behaviours are more sophisticated that what I have proposed. Yet are they?
I took to writing a journal once. And what happens is you often go over the same things that are troubling you each day. As you keep re-writing your material you become less verbose and more simplistic with your motives for all concerned. Yet despite becoming more simplistic no truth is lost. No accuracy is lost.
Case in point when I stayed on Campus for my MBA I noticed that many people were standoffish or even rude to the foreign students. A fellow foreign student confided a similar point to me in a conversation and I responded quickly with a rather unsophisticated comment "But everyone is like that at first". He nodded his head and accepted it. I have always wondered if I should have said it in a more roundabout way or introduced several possible answers for him. After deliberating on this I decided my insight was cutting and that there is simply was no put adding any nuances to it.
I think however for the proletariat academic who has a little but but not much education - they wouldn't have been happy with my answer and would have much preferred being told "I think its complicated". And perhaps I could have even used those exact words and then the other party would have nodded his head sagely and continued forward on the understanding he had been involved in some type of high powered conversation.
I heard the most remarkable description of a Fool the other day from William Shakespeare's writings. A fool is someone who routinely tries to outwit and outthink someone of higher social and or academic standing themselves.
The fools of this world are quite taken with the answer, because "its complex" or because "its the perfect storm of a lot of reasons".
When I was 7 I realised I was not the smartest kid in the class. But I realised I could be more successful than the smartest kid because was aloof and noone understood him while I was a popularist (as much as a 7 year old can be) and could make both his ideas and my ideas accessible and consumable.
I have lost that skill now. Making my ideas consumable. I feel like the aloof guy in the corner some days and yet on other days I don't feel alone. When I spot other people who are prepared to take a stand academically and nail down a complex issue to being caused by one predominant factor then I don't feel by myself. Piercing insights impress me. Sophistication of thought does not. Saying something is caused by a perfect storm of reasons is intellectually lazy and it displeases me.
What say you?
