3 ms·

No, the authors of the article seem to be writing from personal experience and have used an interesting analogy to describe the solution in somewhat geometric t

No, the authors of the article seem to be writing from personal experience and have used an interesting analogy to describe the solution in somewhat geometric terms (a “watershed”). If there were some mathematical way to describe the wiring of the neurons of someone making good decisions maybe they would have used that instead. Absent such a concept they resorted to metaphor instead. Such is the burden of philosophers. More generally I would cast the skill of decision making—while being creative—as this: it’s the ability to navigate a many dimensional design space. Normal engineering has been reduced to a series of unidimensional logical decisions. This is my constraint…these are my material properties (or whatever) and I shall optimize for cost. Easy peasy. A computer could do it. This is the realm of building codes and strict industry standards. But to be creative, you need to navigate a large search space of ideas. Every decision you take opens up new pathways and poses new challenges to solve. What is the best path through such a space? Copy someone else’s design and call yourself an innovator? Stick to first principles? Develop your intuition and then use it to guide your choices? Iterate often and fast? Being creative involves a completely different mindset for working a decision making…and I think it’s different because navigating a large dimensional idea space requires more than mere logic. This is what distinguishes creative people from mere mortals. And decision making in such a space has to be different too. That was why the article was so interesting. One day there might be a mathematical way to define this problem and solution properly. Until then, like philosophers of old, they will have to resort to metaphor to explain what they have grasped with their minds. Some people will get it and some will not. But it’s not nonsense business-speak.

hasmanean 5y ago
BTw I think Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem in which he bemoaned the fact that engineers were different from the people who made decisions. He called them the Sons of Martha and the sons of Mary. https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_martha.htm https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_martha.htm
rramadass 5y ago
>No, the authors of the article seem to be writing from personal experience and have used an interesting analogy to describe the solution in somewhat geometric terms (a “watershed”). If there were some mathematical way to describe the wiring of the neurons of someone making good decisions maybe they would have used that instead. Absent such a concept they resorted to metaphor instead. Such is the burden of philosophers. The "Watershed Metaphor" doesn't make any sense at all. You can contrive anything and call it "Creativity"/"Philosophizing" etc. but that doesn't make it correct. >the skill of decision making—while being creative—as this: it’s the ability to navigate a many dimensional design space This is just a platitude and can mean anything and everything. >Normal engineering has been reduced to a series of unidimensional logical decisions. This is my constraint…these are my material properties (or whatever) and I shall optimize for cost. Easy peasy. A computer could do it. This is the realm of building codes and strict industry standards. WHAT ??? Nobody who knows the "Scientific Method" and has trained as an "Engineer" will ever agree with you. You are taking "one facet" of a specific Engineering Discipline and generalizing it to the whole Domain of "Engineering". This is a fundamental logical fallacy. >But to be creative, you need to navigate a large search space of ideas. Every decision you take opens up new pathways and poses new challenges to solve. What is the best path through such a space? Copy someone else’s design and call yourself an innovator? Stick to first principles? Develop your intuition and then use it to guide your choices? Iterate often and fast? Being creative involves a completely different mindset for working a decision making…and I think it’s different because navigating a large dimensional idea space requires more than mere logic. This is what distinguishes creative people from mere mortals. And decision making in such a space has to be different too. This is mere verbiage. See Baron's Thinking and Deciding for a detailed study of the relevant subjects. >That was why the article was so interesting. One day there might be a mathematical way to define this problem and solution properly. Until then, like philosophers of old, they will have to resort to metaphor to explain what they have grasped with their minds. Some people will get it and some will not. But it’s not nonsense business-speak You setup your own points and traced a path through it; means Nothing.
- ckdarby 5y ago
  Please be more constructive in your criticism. As an example > WHAT ??? Nobody who knows the "Scientific Method" and has trained as an "Engineer" will ever agree with you. You are taking "one facet" of a specific Engineering Discipline and generalizing it to the whole Domain of "Engineering". This is a fundamental logical fallacy. How is it a fundamental logical fallacy? Why are we making broad statements for the whole industry?
  - rramadass 5y ago
    Please do not quote my comments out of context. My above-quoted comment was in response to; >> Normal engineering has been reduced to a series of unidimensional logical decisions. This is my constraint…these are my material properties (or whatever) and I shall optimize for cost. Easy peasy. A computer could do it. This is the realm of building codes and strict industry standards. The fact that this is ludicrous should be self-evident to any "Scientifically Minded" person. Trying to explain the "Why" would have to start at the Basics and would be too long. Instead i will list the relevant resources for further study; - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#Methodology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#Methodology from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_the_scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_... from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Models_of_scientific_inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Models_of_sc...

hasmanean 5y ago

BTw I think Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem in which he bemoaned the fact that engineers were different from the people who made decisions. He called them the Sons of Martha and the sons of Mary. https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_martha.htm https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_martha.htm

rramadass 5y ago

>No, the authors of the article seem to be writing from personal experience and have used an interesting analogy to describe the solution in somewhat geometric terms (a “watershed”). If there were some mathematical way to describe the wiring of the neurons of someone making good decisions maybe they would have used that instead. Absent such a concept they resorted to metaphor instead. Such is the burden of philosophers. The "Watershed Metaphor" doesn't make any sense at all. You can contrive anything and call it "Creativity"/"Philosophizing" etc. but that doesn't make it correct. >the skill of decision making—while being creative—as this: it’s the ability to navigate a many dimensional design space This is just a platitude and can mean anything and everything. >Normal engineering has been reduced to a series of unidimensional logical decisions. This is my constraint…these are my material properties (or whatever) and I shall optimize for cost. Easy peasy. A computer could do it. This is the realm of building codes and strict industry standards. WHAT ??? Nobody who knows the "Scientific Method" and has trained as an "Engineer" will ever agree with you. You are taking "one facet" of a specific Engineering Discipline and generalizing it to the whole Domain of "Engineering". This is a fundamental logical fallacy. >But to be creative, you need to navigate a large search space of ideas. Every decision you take opens up new pathways and poses new challenges to solve. What is the best path through such a space? Copy someone else’s design and call yourself an innovator? Stick to first principles? Develop your intuition and then use it to guide your choices? Iterate often and fast? Being creative involves a completely different mindset for working a decision making…and I think it’s different because navigating a large dimensional idea space requires more than mere logic. This is what distinguishes creative people from mere mortals. And decision making in such a space has to be different too. This is mere verbiage. See Baron's Thinking and Deciding for a detailed study of the relevant subjects. >That was why the article was so interesting. One day there might be a mathematical way to define this problem and solution properly. Until then, like philosophers of old, they will have to resort to metaphor to explain what they have grasped with their minds. Some people will get it and some will not. But it’s not nonsense business-speak You setup your own points and traced a path through it; means Nothing.

ckdarby 5y ago
Please be more constructive in your criticism. As an example > WHAT ??? Nobody who knows the "Scientific Method" and has trained as an "Engineer" will ever agree with you. You are taking "one facet" of a specific Engineering Discipline and generalizing it to the whole Domain of "Engineering". This is a fundamental logical fallacy. How is it a fundamental logical fallacy? Why are we making broad statements for the whole industry?
- rramadass 5y ago
  Please do not quote my comments out of context. My above-quoted comment was in response to; >> Normal engineering has been reduced to a series of unidimensional logical decisions. This is my constraint…these are my material properties (or whatever) and I shall optimize for cost. Easy peasy. A computer could do it. This is the realm of building codes and strict industry standards. The fact that this is ludicrous should be self-evident to any "Scientifically Minded" person. Trying to explain the "Why" would have to start at the Basics and would be too long. Instead i will list the relevant resources for further study; - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#Methodology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#Methodology from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_the_scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_... from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Models_of_scientific_inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Models_of_sc...