4 ms·

I try to attribute behavior to extrinsic properties whenever possible. And then consider it intrinsic if proven otherwise. Most people seem to do it the opposi

I try to attribute behavior to extrinsic properties whenever possible. And then consider it intrinsic if proven otherwise. Most people seem to do it the opposite way, which probably leads to a lot of classification errors. Fixing an intrinsic problem is so hard that it's considered a waste of time by most, whereas fixing an extrinsic problem is within the realm of possibility. I figure it's better to waste time trying to do the impossible if the alternative is to leave a lot of low hanging fruit untouched.

taeric 14y ago
Oddly, I've been pondering the intrinsic/extrinsic divide recently. I was seeing the same thing you are referring to, I believe. Easy example is traffic. People think it is something intrinsic to traffic that has them upset. That is clearly false, if I can go through the same traffic and not be upset. So, firstly, is that essentially the same thing? And second, any good reading on this idea?
- unimpressive 14y ago
  No. I'm talking specifically about peoples behavior. I'm sure I've heard that before but I have no idea where you would go to read about it.
- calinet6 14y ago
  More close to extrinsic/intrinsic is the traffic problem itself. Is traffic created by individuals, or is traffic created by a larger systematic effect? If you have the first perspective, then you're likely to be upset at people and at the traffic. If you take the second perspective, you're likely to understand its true nature and possible ways of fixing it. In my experience, the systematic perspective is almost always the correct one. Individuals are merely operating their best within their system. Exactly as in the original post with her fingers and the piano. Brilliant analogy. We need more systems thinking, beyond just intrinsic/extrinsic understanding. I don't know any good reading on the psychological effect you speak of, but good reading to start on systems thinking is Deming and go from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
  - unimpressive 14y ago
    This is basically what I was talking about.

taeric 14y ago

Oddly, I've been pondering the intrinsic/extrinsic divide recently. I was seeing the same thing you are referring to, I believe. Easy example is traffic. People think it is something intrinsic to traffic that has them upset. That is clearly false, if I can go through the same traffic and not be upset. So, firstly, is that essentially the same thing? And second, any good reading on this idea?

unimpressive 14y ago
No. I'm talking specifically about peoples behavior. I'm sure I've heard that before but I have no idea where you would go to read about it.
calinet6 14y ago
More close to extrinsic/intrinsic is the traffic problem itself. Is traffic created by individuals, or is traffic created by a larger systematic effect? If you have the first perspective, then you're likely to be upset at people and at the traffic. If you take the second perspective, you're likely to understand its true nature and possible ways of fixing it. In my experience, the systematic perspective is almost always the correct one. Individuals are merely operating their best within their system. Exactly as in the original post with her fingers and the piano. Brilliant analogy. We need more systems thinking, beyond just intrinsic/extrinsic understanding. I don't know any good reading on the psychological effect you speak of, but good reading to start on systems thinking is Deming and go from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
- unimpressive 14y ago
  This is basically what I was talking about.