[ooobit2]

I think the one thing we cannot open for debate, because it is evident given any framework, is the impact of risk avoidance in knowledge acquisition. I once read that given a room with a table and some blocks, the idiot would wait for instructions; the smart person would try to surmise the intent placing the blocks on the table, the table in the room, and the subject (them) at the table; however, the genius would find novel ways to combine the blocks, the table, and the room, often at the bewilderment of any observer.

Frameworks are what smart people use to get results. I believe risk is the tool of geniuses.

It'd be obvious, for example, to add Bold, Italic, and Underline buttons for usability to the textbox I'm typing in. To me, however, the buttons, the textbox, even the text-styling characters are arbitrary constraints. I want to know if this "reply" feature could be built in-line, without a textbox? If I could eliminate the constraints one-by-one, how many ways could you and I interact over this specific topic that would be both novel and, perhaps, more engaging for us both?

[fblp]

I'd like to lovingly point out that your comment notes how a book you read describes how a genius thinks about a situation - and then you wrote a paragraph to demonstrate your similar genius to the comment box. What was your intent?

Your comment (and my comment) strike me as seeking connection and seeking recognition - both classic behaviors on Maslow's hierarchy of needs (a model).

I think that knowledge of the models helps one see both common ground and opposition - and the richest life experience may come from thinking like an idiot, smart person and a genius.

:)

[ooobit2]

I agree. But I would like to point out that I did not initialize my thinking from Maslow's hierarchy. A discernible connection is coincidental rather than intentional. And that's what I intended to say through describing risk. It is safe to begin with the framework and work within its constraints to achieve a relatively predictable result. However, that also averts any risk inherent to failures along processes that discover novel relationships, test outcomes, compare against known outcomes. That may yield more desirable results, but it's more often riddled with stochastic failure. It's natural to feel repulsion to it, but the ability to persist against continuous discomfort is what separates the Bezos, Musks, Gates, et. al. from nearly everyone else.

On a related note, Bill Gates' recent doubts about the utility of all-electric long distance trucks was surprising. I don't know of nearly any other time Gates just reached into a field he has zero experience in and reacted to his own repulsion of his discomfort with the subject and its context. It was an odd, uncharacteristic move, and one that makes me wonder if his value set has changed enough that he cannot provide value and authoritative influence in consumer and enterprise hardware and software solutions anymore. People change, so maybe it's true. But man, I idolized Bill as a kid. It's hard to not feel like he's the reason people take people like me seriously, even today.

[fblp]

Thanks for your response and agreement. No comments on bill but I'd like to respond to this: >It is safe to begin with the framework and work within its constraints to achieve a relatively predictable result. However, that also averts any risk inherent to failures along processes that discover novel relationships, test outcomes, compare against known outcomes.

I'm abstracting this to a question about creative process and whether you should use a conventional process or try something new. I think this depends on the organization the process exists in - the answer could be both or either.

You may find the book "Teeming" that speaks to anthropology and organizational evolution interesting as it speaks to creating organizations that have both structure and fluidity.

[h0p3]

Forgive me for interrupting. I've been enjoying thinking about your conversation. If you have the time and inclination, I would like to know your feelings or thoughts (even just your gut instincts), if any, about Metamodernism (whatever this word means to you).