Yesterday you mentioned the what, why and how. Where did you pick that idea up from?
Joshua Seymour
Neothink literature and the 7 Steps of Organizing.
Gavriel Shaw
aha ok good
check this quote out:
“We too often mistakenly believe that “if only people would understand the detail of the solution they will also understand the underlying paradigm†– dead wrong. If people understand the paradigm first – if the paradigm is transferred properly – then people can, and do, understand the detail – but not before. Before they will only interpret the proposed detail in terms of their current paradigm.” – http://www.dbrmfg.co.nz/Strategy%20Sales.htm
Joshua Seymour
do you have an analogy of that in action?
Gavriel Shaw
well yes, wanting to get to ‘how’ prematurely, without sufficient time in the ‘what and why’…
Joshua Seymour
ah, alright
makes sense
Gavriel Shaw
I think we have to do both at once
Joshua Seymour
what and why do come before how
it seems
Gavriel Shaw
its walking a very fine line of balance between contextualism, flexibility, practicality and openness
Joshua Seymour
which you’ve spoke of countless times and demonstrated countless more
[Editors note: cheeky bugger!]
Gavriel Shaw
consider the example of
strategies and tactics
http://www.success-matrix.com/post/1678/
Joshua Seymour
you consider strategy the ‘why’ side
Gavriel Shaw
similarly we might think of strategy as being ‘what and why’, with ‘how’ being about tactics
Joshua Seymour
right
Gavriel Shaw
but that post explains the theory of constraints view that strategy and tactics must exist together at every level of the hierarchy
Joshua Seymour
strategy is based on fundamental ideas/beliefs
tactics are based on fundamental applications
of those the strategies
Gavriel Shaw
right
Joshua Seymour
both need each other
Gavriel Shaw
so, ‘how’ comes often and at every level, given any ‘what and why’
Joshua Seymour
it’s the perfect division of labor / division of essence
Gavriel Shaw
but then re-consider that above quote in terms of ‘true knowledge’
knowledge builds contextually, right?
Joshua Seymour
agreed
Gavriel Shaw
someone recently asked me if I found a guru would I take on board the gurus total model
I said of course I could not
because I have been exposed to many models, of which that guru would no nothing or very little
Joshua Seymour
b/c contextually speaking you have different memories/experiences to base off
Gavriel Shaw
right,
thus only I am at the centre of my universe, and must ‘play’ with all the various models that I am exposed to from various ‘gurus’
Joshua Seymour
what works for the guru and his village of students, very well might or might not work for you in whole or in part
which doesn’t make him wrong
or you wrong
Gavriel Shaw
right
Joshua Seymour
b/c it’s not about right or wrong
it’s about good, better, best
in the moment
contextually
Gavriel Shaw
right
and I also found it intersting that the above quote suggests that we can push people prematurely into ‘how’ they ‘should’ do something
before they have been given sufficient exposure or time to adjust to the broader underlying dynamic
and that shines light on FRWs writing sytle approach
and also MH’s
that they focus on the big picture stuff, and never gave ‘enough’ detail (from our eager perspective)
because they had to focus our attention on the broadest possible underlying dynamics, and only once that was embedded and coralled properly, could they fill in the details of ‘how’
make sense?
Joshua Seymour
ahh… yes that does make much sense
and it explains the effectiveness of modern product launches formulas
Gavriel Shaw
?
Joshua Seymour
side ways sales letter
focusing on what/why stuff
but still good stuff you really need to know
and if you don’t know it then the how stuff isn’t gonna work anyway
Gavriel Shaw
nice
so strategy / what/why comes before tactics / how… because strategy lays the underlying foundation or paradigm, on which the tactics are contextually accurate and practically valuable
we have to dance between seeking detail and remaining wide scope
Loading ...
