[bsedlm]

> Notice how there are no clear criteria for evaluation in this space? No math. No models. Just loose concepts strung together with words and sprinkled with calls to authority (e.g., Andy Grove) to add credibility. No evidence. No science.

Indeed, this is a very good observation from which many ideas occur to me:

Which one do I prefer?

Is one obviously better? (I don't think this is a good question: It's like asking which is better, an API reference (a math textbook with a long list of theorems and definitions) or an API tutorial (a math textbook which holds your hand and explains "intuitively"). It depends on what you need).

Isn't it the case that initial explanations (explorations into a new topic) are like this at first, and over time (usually through work spanning multiple generations) the theories become more mathematical?

All in all I wonder about the difference between these two contrasting approaches towards understanding. And I wonder about it in such abstract (philosophical?) terms that the specific "organizational design" is just an instance of what I'm curious about; which is the different ways to explain the same things and other ways to approach "understanding" in general.