I like your examples, and recognize the problem you point out, but I don’t agree with your conclusion.
The problem with counter-arguments of the form “Well, if we changed this one variable of a social system to a very different value, X would break!” is that variables like that usually change slowly, with only a small number of people fully and quickly adopting any change, and the rest moving along with the gradually shifting Overton window.
Additionally, having a proposed solution that involves changing a large number of things should probably set off warning alarms in your head: such solutions are more difficult to implement and have a greater number of working parts.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I want to note that my solution is not to change many variables simultaneously and casually—to the contrary, I’m saying that I want to avoid oversimplification. I’m thinking more multi-variable experiments are probably good, and more thought experiments, when changing large systems. But in general, its just really hard.
As one example of how I see things going wrong: I think a lot of really good changes end up failing/getting rejected because people actually have thoughts correct about changing one variable, but because they only change that variable and have it fail in the current system, they discard the idea. This actually ends up slowing down good change a lot, since people are inaccurately thinking that they are proving good ideas false.
I’m a proponent of more careful thought and being slow to think one has the right solution to complex problems, even when one has something that appears to be an answer.
Um...maybe I’m misreading, but I think you’re agreeing.
OP:
If you want to be a change maker, it is best to start small in your actions, study and experiment a lot.
vs
variables like that usually change slowly, with only a small number of people fully and quickly adopting any change, and the rest moving along with the gradually shifting Overton window.
I like your examples, and recognize the problem you point out, but I don’t agree with your conclusion.
The problem with counter-arguments of the form “Well, if we changed this one variable of a social system to a very different value, X would break!” is that variables like that usually change slowly, with only a small number of people fully and quickly adopting any change, and the rest moving along with the gradually shifting Overton window.
Additionally, having a proposed solution that involves changing a large number of things should probably set off warning alarms in your head: such solutions are more difficult to implement and have a greater number of working parts.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I want to note that my solution is not to change many variables simultaneously and casually—to the contrary, I’m saying that I want to avoid oversimplification. I’m thinking more multi-variable experiments are probably good, and more thought experiments, when changing large systems. But in general, its just really hard.
As one example of how I see things going wrong: I think a lot of really good changes end up failing/getting rejected because people actually have thoughts correct about changing one variable, but because they only change that variable and have it fail in the current system, they discard the idea. This actually ends up slowing down good change a lot, since people are inaccurately thinking that they are proving good ideas false.
I’m a proponent of more careful thought and being slow to think one has the right solution to complex problems, even when one has something that appears to be an answer.
Um...maybe I’m misreading, but I think you’re agreeing.
OP:
vs