That depends on the situation and record, doesn’t it? If 90% of changes that you have undergone in the past were negative, then wouldn’t it be reasonable to resist change in the future? Obviously you shouldn’t just outright refuse all change, but if you have a chance to slow it down long enough to better judge what the effects will be, isn’t that good? I guess the real solution is to judge possible actions by analyzing the cost/benefit to the best of your ability in cases where this is practical.
Not necessarily. I know that if I get really angry, I sometimes make (generally small) decisions out of a desire to hurt whatever I am angry at. I don’t think that counts as “well-meaning”.
Pareto efficiency, or Pareto optimality, is a state of allocation of resources in which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off.
Or about a definition of a (local) maximum that says that all other (adjacent) options are worse?
Not all changes are good. In fact, most potential changes would be absolutely awful.
That is no reason to fear change, “not every change is an improvement but every improvement is a change” and all that.
That depends on the situation and record, doesn’t it? If 90% of changes that you have undergone in the past were negative, then wouldn’t it be reasonable to resist change in the future? Obviously you shouldn’t just outright refuse all change, but if you have a chance to slow it down long enough to better judge what the effects will be, isn’t that good? I guess the real solution is to judge possible actions by analyzing the cost/benefit to the best of your ability in cases where this is practical.
That’s a ridiculously pessimistic thing to say
I suspect you read this as “most (well-meaning) potential changes” while The_Lion means it as “most (random) potential changes”.
Most random changes to highly organized structures would, indeed, be awful.
All the changes that people make are “well-meaning”, even those being made by ISIS. A word that better makes the distinction is “intentional”.
Not necessarily. I know that if I get really angry, I sometimes make (generally small) decisions out of a desire to hurt whatever I am angry at. I don’t think that counts as “well-meaning”.
Depends on your definition of “well” and that line of approach would lead us into the usual definitional morass :-/
And, technically speaking, there is also compulsive behaviour.
How would you feel about this?
Or about a definition of a (local) maximum that says that all other (adjacent) options are worse?
I don’t have any particular feelings about since I don’t see how you are relating it to the quotes. Could you please clarify?
I believe it’s a concept and reckon it’s a pretty good Wikipedia article...