LynAlden on Nostr: When it comes to analysis, design, or management, a critical and recurring challenge ...
When it comes to analysis, design, or management, a critical and recurring challenge is to be able to:
1) hold two or more competing thoughts in your head,
2) but then not get stuck with decision paralysis,
3) and thus to be able to form a view and take action.
It's easy to fail in either of the first two steps.
For the first step, many people can't steel-man their opponent's view, don't take time to seriously consider competing arguments. This represents tribalism and insufficient critical thought, and has a high likelihood of being wrong. People become easy to manipulate, and where their views end up largely depends on luck of their surroundings and who managed to convince them of something earlier.
For the second step, a smaller subset of people get past the first step but then get stuck in decision paralysis or cynicism. There are too many paths, too many compelling and contradictory points. It then becomes a problem of overthinking and thus inaction. It's easier to identify problems than to build solutions, so this valley of inaction is an enticing trap that feels intellectually stimulating but leads nowhere.
The narrow path beyond those two, and what we should strive for, is to be able to do enough critical thought to the point where it starts to venture into the realm of decision paralysis, but then find a way to weigh the probabilities and form a conclusion to start taking action on, with the willingness to pivot if evidence/probabilities mount toward a different direction.
Anyway, happy Christmas Eve.
1) hold two or more competing thoughts in your head,
2) but then not get stuck with decision paralysis,
3) and thus to be able to form a view and take action.
It's easy to fail in either of the first two steps.
For the first step, many people can't steel-man their opponent's view, don't take time to seriously consider competing arguments. This represents tribalism and insufficient critical thought, and has a high likelihood of being wrong. People become easy to manipulate, and where their views end up largely depends on luck of their surroundings and who managed to convince them of something earlier.
For the second step, a smaller subset of people get past the first step but then get stuck in decision paralysis or cynicism. There are too many paths, too many compelling and contradictory points. It then becomes a problem of overthinking and thus inaction. It's easier to identify problems than to build solutions, so this valley of inaction is an enticing trap that feels intellectually stimulating but leads nowhere.
The narrow path beyond those two, and what we should strive for, is to be able to do enough critical thought to the point where it starts to venture into the realm of decision paralysis, but then find a way to weigh the probabilities and form a conclusion to start taking action on, with the willingness to pivot if evidence/probabilities mount toward a different direction.
Anyway, happy Christmas Eve.