I think I shouldn't watch stuff that I find interesting that I know zero about. I come away with a lot of questions, and some frustrations. I'm not sure who the audience of this is for. It reminds me of the experiences of youngish men, I read about with a certain Australian aboriginal tribe, they have an ongoing formal conversation that continues on over centuries if I remember correctly. It's like a collective memory library. So anyone entering into the conversation has to wait a time to understand what went before, where the conversation is at, so they're on the same page and can make a contribution to add to the richness of the conversation for the group. Otherwise, you're a clumsy dim-witted oaf who annoys all the elders and get booted out for disrupting the flow. But at the same time when the main speaker was touching on real-world stuff, it's like well okay actually that's stuff I have to deal with, in designing solutions for small communities. That's exciting if it gives you a different way to see things and opens up possibilities. So yes, good stuff, different perspectives useful. And I'm thinking to myself 'What is this? Are these models you are making are they designed to explain only. And or is it models so you can look to leverage change, make change happen, why? Are the models static? It feels like the model is static. What is the design of your thinking? What informs your models? What type of real-world scenarios can you map them over to...' Very irritating- very interesting, *sigh* Very distracting. I ended up buying the book.
I think I shouldn't watch stuff that I find interesting that I know zero about. I come away with a lot of questions, and some frustrations. I'm not sure who the audience of this is for. It reminds me of the experiences of youngish men, I read about with a certain Australian aboriginal tribe, they have an ongoing formal conversation that continues on over centuries if I remember correctly. It's like a collective memory library. So anyone entering into the conversation has to wait a time to understand what went before, where the conversation is at, so they're on the same page and can make a contribution to add to the richness of the conversation for the group. Otherwise, you're a clumsy dim-witted oaf who annoys all the elders and get booted out for disrupting the flow.
But at the same time when the main speaker was touching on real-world stuff, it's like well okay actually that's stuff I have to deal with, in designing solutions for small communities. That's exciting if it gives you a different way to see things and opens up possibilities. So yes, good stuff, different perspectives useful. And I'm thinking to myself 'What is this? Are these models you are making are they designed to explain only. And or is it models so you can look to leverage change, make change happen, why? Are the models static? It feels like the model is static. What is the design of your thinking? What informs your models? What type of real-world scenarios can you map them over to...' Very irritating- very interesting, *sigh* Very distracting. I ended up buying the book.