I read and took notes on chapter 6 & 7 of _The Choice (Revised Edition)_ by Goldratt.
> CHAPTER 6: Putting the Belief to Work> I like my explanation much better than his. It explains how Inherent Simplicity helps to overcome the first psychological barrier, the tendency to camouflage the big problems.
why do ppl have a tendency to camouflage big problems?
what I recall from before reading this book is that a lot of people don't like being in a "I don't know" or a "I am wrong" state.
That's like wanting to have solutions instead of problems (which is weird given that you can't have a solution until you know of a problem that needs the solution).
they don't do well with lots of unknown. they're only ok with some unknown.
their self-esteem is connected to... I guess how big their problems are. so if they can fool themselves into thinking they have less big problems, that's a boost to their self-esteem. it's weird. self-esteem is about one's confidence that he can do well. so imagine raising your confidence that you can play NFL football by reducing your standard to high school football.
During this chapter, talking about inherent simplicity, I'm reminded of Rand's idea that there do not exist contradictions in reality (probably originated before her).
In the early part of my life (before 20 years old) I saw math and physical reality as inherently simple. I did not have that view for people. I do have that view for people now (after 22 years of running businesses and learning how people work, including 10 years of exposure to FI ideas which dramatically helped in my pursuit).
> CHAPTER 7: Harmony
> The third obstacle is that we tend to blame the other party." Smiling he adds, "Exactly like you just did."
lol
YEAH! WTF!
One reason people blame others first is that it helps one protect his self-esteem.
I don't think that's always what's happening. I think poor epistemology skill (without a motivation to protect ones self-esteem) can sometimes cause it too.
Something I do in business is this. Anytime there is a problem, I try to blame myself first. What could I have done differently? What actions did I take that led to other people interpreting my actions a certain way and then acting a certain way (that I disagree with) as a result? Then after I've ruled out things I could have done differently, I look for things others could have done. Or rather I look at all of them simultaneously. I try to never blame others while ignoring theories that say I am to blame.
Oh and one way to blame myself is to blame company procedures (at least the ones I'm responsible for).
This reminds me. I like blame, while most people hate it. Blame helps us choose priorities for where we should put our effort. Blame points out opportunities for improvement. Blame leads to success.
I'm reminded that people hate blame because they don't view their fault as something they can change. So in their view, blame = condemnation, while in my view, blame = opportunity for improvement.
Reading further I note that the book is saying to stop blaming people, and stop blaming oneself. This is weird. It's like Goldratt has a similar view about blaming that I'm criticizing. He's saying that blame and harmony are opposites. I don't agree with that. I think blame and harmony can co-exist. I can blame a physics theory for failing to survive some experimental test and that doesn't remove harmony. I can blame a scientist for failing to do his experiment correctly and that doesn't remove harmony (cuz like the scientist can learn about my criticism and improve, or other scientists can learn from my criticism).
> What are the characteristics of situations where I expect inharmonious relationships? I'll certainly find an inharmonious relationship when the relationship is not typified by camaraderie and loyalty but by gripes and complaints. When there is a big asymmetry between the two parties; one party is almost totally dependent on the other, while the other has plenty of equivalent alternatives.
> The problem is that many times the strong party pretends that the relationship is fine; they turn a blind eye to the animosity they cause in the other party.
parents do this a lot. They turn a blind eye to their kids saying "I hate you" and "I don't want to live with you." They pretend that things are fine or that nothing can be done about it. They say things like, "it's a phase". "It's part of human nature [to hate your parents]". "It's part of human nature to hate responsibility." "You can't always get what you want." "My parents did the same thing [beat me when I disrespected them] and I turned out fine."
> What are the scenarios where it is almost impossible to hide the fact that the relationships are far from being harmonious?
> I know. It is when one party, because of its selfish interests, demands a major change from the other party.
I don't know about this. It seems wrong. I'm thinking of parents pushing goals onto their kids who don't share those goals. I don't think it makes sense to say that the parent is being selfish. A better expression is that the parent is not letting his child control his own life. If the parent was being selfish, he would not interfere in his child's life and instead would focus on his own life and only be involved with his kid in ways where parent and child are acting on shared goals (like parent helps child with child's goals, to the extent child wants that help).
I read further and I see now what Goldratt is talking about. He's talking about a situation where a big company wants to make a change, and that change would require a change in their small suppliers. And the idea is that that change at the small supplier would be something unwanted by the supplier. My guess is that Goldratt expects that the small supplier would change their mind about it and agree that it's a good change for them to do. It looks like the next chapter will be about this.
No comments:
Post a Comment