3 ms·
At the same time, we do have to collectively make decisions with real impacts, involving some people benefiting and some others getting hurt, and not always can
by jacobolus 9y ago
At the same time, we do have to collectively make decisions with real impacts, involving some people benefiting and some others getting hurt, and not always can everyone be persuaded to sign onto the socially agreed decision.
* * *
But for more on your point, I recommend Carse’s book Finite and Infinite Games, https://amzn.com/0029059801/ https://amzn.com/0029059801/
- Chiba-City 9y agoI have "fight" in me. Fight is good. The trick is applying it. I am trying to write an article, but provisionally we find "contours of adversity." There are tons of examples like "HVAC power consumption" for servers or "inflammation" for North American eaters. Once we map out stakeholders in the current "state of adversity" we find human specific institutional obstacles in our supply chains habitually feeding off the adversities. Those become the de facto "enemies" of better new options absent much moral theorizing or imagination. A very sound and shared 1980-90's Netizen principle was "IP routes around obstacles." In the field, those obstacles fight back like crazy and often enjoy political allies. Separating those concerns between "problem space" and "solution space" makes for better shared strategies for early teams and growing companies. I am trying to lay down schematic methodological formulations for better conceptualization of value adding and enduring entrepreneurship channeling that beautiful "fight" of human progress.
- Chiba-City 9y agoThanks for the book recommendation. That looks like a winner. FWIW, primate biology in big organizations or around family formation have much bigger negative impacts on achievement than I would have realized as a younger man. The odd "zero sum games" around mate selection and status seeking can be too real.