4 ms·

I'm really glad you decided to link that IBM page because I can use to to show you that your "inversion" metric is one I really do reject. I've rewritten the t

I'm really glad you decided to link that IBM page because I can use to to show you that your "inversion" metric is one I really do reject. I've rewritten the top of the document to invert it. https://pastebin.com/YmKB0uNV https://pastebin.com/YmKB0uNV I stopped, but obviously could have continued to go through the rest of the document. So by your proposed standard of "is the inverted version still good" the answer is "absolutely". But that doesn't make these good values! I agree with you that it is not a great document at all. Even though it can be inverted without any problem or challenge. I simply can't accept the inversion tool you proffered.

harryh 9y ago
You know....that's a really go rewrite you did. You have me pondering the usefulness of my tool. I'm not ready to abandon it but you've convinced me that it needs refining. Thanks!
- logicallee 9y ago
  Still, I started off making an entirely different point - (that there are many good values that can't be inverted) on which I think we were agreed. So in the end I really argued most strongly (and took the biggest karma hit on) for things we actually agreed on! So thanks for your discussion, too :). (meanwhile all my other contri bributors
  - logicallee 9y ago
    (last line kept in error)
barrkel 9y ago
I don't think you inverted the values correctly! For example, starting out with these: • Dedication to every client’s success • Innovation that matters-for our company and for the world • Trust and personal responsibility in all relationships The obvious inversion (to me) is: • Dedication to every client’s failure • Innovation that matters to nobody • Mistrust and lack of responsibility in all relationships But actually, the positive values as written are contradictory. What if there's a conflict between innovation that matters to the world vs a client's success - which comes first? Both are positive. But these values don't discriminate.
- logicallee 9y ago
  I didn't introduce the idea of inversion, and if you look through this thread from the top you will see that I used it as defined by the person who introduced it, who called the above inversions (in a sibling comment to yours) "very good." You might have missed it beecause there are a couple of conversations going on in this thread. Pay attention to the usernames. Anyway for the inversions, I am playing by that person's rules and following that person's terminology, not simply negating these statements. Some statements can't be inverted. (For example it's not possible to invert "don't murder your colleagues.")

harryh 9y ago

You know....that's a really go rewrite you did. You have me pondering the usefulness of my tool. I'm not ready to abandon it but you've convinced me that it needs refining. Thanks!

logicallee 9y ago
Still, I started off making an entirely different point - (that there are many good values that can't be inverted) on which I think we were agreed. So in the end I really argued most strongly (and took the biggest karma hit on) for things we actually agreed on! So thanks for your discussion, too :). (meanwhile all my other contri bributors
- logicallee 9y ago
  (last line kept in error)

barrkel 9y ago

I don't think you inverted the values correctly! For example, starting out with these: • Dedication to every client’s success • Innovation that matters-for our company and for the world • Trust and personal responsibility in all relationships The obvious inversion (to me) is: • Dedication to every client’s failure • Innovation that matters to nobody • Mistrust and lack of responsibility in all relationships But actually, the positive values as written are contradictory. What if there's a conflict between innovation that matters to the world vs a client's success - which comes first? Both are positive. But these values don't discriminate.

logicallee 9y ago
I didn't introduce the idea of inversion, and if you look through this thread from the top you will see that I used it as defined by the person who introduced it, who called the above inversions (in a sibling comment to yours) "very good." You might have missed it beecause there are a couple of conversations going on in this thread. Pay attention to the usernames. Anyway for the inversions, I am playing by that person's rules and following that person's terminology, not simply negating these statements. Some statements can't be inverted. (For example it's not possible to invert "don't murder your colleagues.")