>Or are they a super complicated, high dimensional, unsimplifiable foam?
Yes. With consciousness which, as far as I can tell, no one can explain. ----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, 9:46 AM glen <[email protected]> wrote: > No, not so that we can "relate" or "keep the peace", but so that we know > what problem is being solved. In order to delegate, you have to know > *something* about why you're delegating, right? As Steve tried to point > out with the "form leads/follows function" and his talk about a well-stated > problem, in order to delegate, say, "fix my car", I have to know that the > car is the problem. If, for example, the real problem is that I don't know > how to drive the car, there's nothing the mechanic will be able to do to > "fix it" because the car's not the problem. (My mom once drove her Tbird > until it completely ran out of oil. 8^O) > > So, we have to have some practical understanding of the skills needed in > order to a) choose who to delegate to and b) to even know that delegation > of something is needed. Of course, if I read you empathetically, I can > admit that a lot of rhetorical weight sits in the word "practical". What > does it mean to have a practical understanding of, say, welding or brain > surgery? But I'd counter argue that a practical understanding of welding > can stop at, say, an inventory of the tools needed and some of the safety > practices ... just enough to prevent your motorcycle from exploding and to > recognize whether you're being ripped off by the welder. That's a > "practical" understanding of welding, to some extent. You don't have to be > able to weld to have a practical understanding of welding. > > But to be clear, that's what this thread is all about: can we (should we) > characterize an individual by circumscribing what they do? Is such > circumscription even *possible*? And to what extent do we damage their > personhood by abstracting and idealizing away all the gory detail into some > characteristic equation of that person? ... is a person roughly spherical > in problem space? Or are they a super complicated, high dimensional, > unsimplifiable foam? > > > On 3/6/19 7:23 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > If person with skill 1 delegates to individuals with distinct skills 2 > and 3 and person with skill 3 delegates to individuals with skills 4 and 5 > the kind of overlap of the kind you mention still can occur. If > developing any these skills takes decades, why is it important that > everyone have some practical understanding of the other skills? More > importantly, why should we ever want to decrease the total number of > skills? So that we can `relate' to one another and keep the peace (be > luddites)? > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
