One of the things about having long posts is that you'll invariably leave your flank exposed somewhere for someone to chew on.
I should be a better writer, I won't argue about that, but I did come to the reluctant conclusion that perhaps no matter how well I parsed a piece, a surprising number of people would not read the words. I actually spent some time researching and then writing about the inherent difficulties in talking about something new.
It didn't have so much to do with me or my skills as an author, or even my personality; it turned out to be an internal human defense mechanism that is very important and at the same time very subtle.
For those of you familiar with computer-drafting programs there is a tool known as, "snap to grid". When selected, it sets a grid with a scale of your choosing behind the drawing surface. If for example, you are drawing a line and ending it, that end immediately goes to the closest grid mark. Its usefulness is keeping the drawn dimensions all coordinated to a scale that you've set.
If I'm drawing a house, all lumber will come out to the same length by the scale that I've set, rather than some precision point where I simply stopped the line. it's great for modular thinking and drawing, and it's irritating when you forgot to turn it off and it drags something you've drawn off to some hidden grid point.
--------------------
I'm not evading responding to the responses, I just thought I'd prep my audience with another mind exercise I hope helps digest the gnarly ball all of thinking differently.
let's say you go up to someone and want to discuss something you've been thinking about, and it seems to you to be a new perspective that contains some new facts that you'd like to share. So you start to talk using the same words in generally a familiar context, but it doesn't match the conventional thinking or explanations.
For your listener, snap to grid is engaged and uses the grid references of what he has been taught or what he has learned by experience.
Once his snap to grid is in turned on, the attempted discussion is pulled over to his personal grid points,and you can literally explain for a very long time without it ever being comfortable or even tolerable.
Even if that person is seriously trying to listen, snap to grid is so powerful an internal protective mechanism that a new perspective might never be hearable. That is not a criticism of the person, it is what we do all the time every day. Snap to grid keeps us safe; if it's not familiar, we are cautious. Snap to grid keeps us knowledgeable; we can discuss things in the familiar context of our grid references. Snap to grid buys us time while we consider; we don't simply leap at every offered opportunities or take risks of various types.
When we come out of school, our grids are fairly well defined and sharp; they ought to be the leading edge of academic knowledge, and for some people that arrogant grid-assurance will stay for all their lives without changing anything. Others have their grids gently shaped and changed by life experiences, or sometimes even epiphanal moments.
Snap to grid is a big-time determinant that runs a lot of our life at some time or another, and is sometimes irrelevant when placed against more important issues.
Going back to discussing something new with someone whose grid does not include your new specific position between four of his established points, they might appear to him that you're speaking gibberish or at the least missing the truth of what is common knowledge.
Whether or not we want it, snap to grid is there and snap to grid is an obstacle to thinking outside the box, because it is indeed the box.
I personally enjoy new considerations and new perspectives, and I will admit too many times having my own snap to grid interfere with my listening. That's why I say I make a point of personal professional discipline to try to listen; it sometimes forces me to stick around long enough to be kicked in the [bad word] by an epiphany.
Bob Wolfowitz
I should be a better writer, I won't argue about that, but I did come to the reluctant conclusion that perhaps no matter how well I parsed a piece, a surprising number of people would not read the words. I actually spent some time researching and then writing about the inherent difficulties in talking about something new.
It didn't have so much to do with me or my skills as an author, or even my personality; it turned out to be an internal human defense mechanism that is very important and at the same time very subtle.
For those of you familiar with computer-drafting programs there is a tool known as, "snap to grid". When selected, it sets a grid with a scale of your choosing behind the drawing surface. If for example, you are drawing a line and ending it, that end immediately goes to the closest grid mark. Its usefulness is keeping the drawn dimensions all coordinated to a scale that you've set.
If I'm drawing a house, all lumber will come out to the same length by the scale that I've set, rather than some precision point where I simply stopped the line. it's great for modular thinking and drawing, and it's irritating when you forgot to turn it off and it drags something you've drawn off to some hidden grid point.
--------------------
I'm not evading responding to the responses, I just thought I'd prep my audience with another mind exercise I hope helps digest the gnarly ball all of thinking differently.
let's say you go up to someone and want to discuss something you've been thinking about, and it seems to you to be a new perspective that contains some new facts that you'd like to share. So you start to talk using the same words in generally a familiar context, but it doesn't match the conventional thinking or explanations.
For your listener, snap to grid is engaged and uses the grid references of what he has been taught or what he has learned by experience.
Once his snap to grid is in turned on, the attempted discussion is pulled over to his personal grid points,and you can literally explain for a very long time without it ever being comfortable or even tolerable.
Even if that person is seriously trying to listen, snap to grid is so powerful an internal protective mechanism that a new perspective might never be hearable. That is not a criticism of the person, it is what we do all the time every day. Snap to grid keeps us safe; if it's not familiar, we are cautious. Snap to grid keeps us knowledgeable; we can discuss things in the familiar context of our grid references. Snap to grid buys us time while we consider; we don't simply leap at every offered opportunities or take risks of various types.
When we come out of school, our grids are fairly well defined and sharp; they ought to be the leading edge of academic knowledge, and for some people that arrogant grid-assurance will stay for all their lives without changing anything. Others have their grids gently shaped and changed by life experiences, or sometimes even epiphanal moments.
Snap to grid is a big-time determinant that runs a lot of our life at some time or another, and is sometimes irrelevant when placed against more important issues.
Going back to discussing something new with someone whose grid does not include your new specific position between four of his established points, they might appear to him that you're speaking gibberish or at the least missing the truth of what is common knowledge.
Whether or not we want it, snap to grid is there and snap to grid is an obstacle to thinking outside the box, because it is indeed the box.
I personally enjoy new considerations and new perspectives, and I will admit too many times having my own snap to grid interfere with my listening. That's why I say I make a point of personal professional discipline to try to listen; it sometimes forces me to stick around long enough to be kicked in the [bad word] by an epiphany.
Bob Wolfowitz
