Deutsch:
utility and truth must be interpreted through theory
Defining “solve” and “problem”
Recipe: How to solve problems
Human relationships
Trust
Shared sense of quality
Shared intent
The problem space
“solving” a “problem”
A well defined problem
Contextual utility
Ideal
A
bimodal strategy opens the space between ideal and utility
Contextual utility is wide,
specific
Balancing
specific contextual utility and long term vision
An
initiative can improve one or more cases of contextual utility
Problem space,
contextual utility, solution space
Solutions are options
Growing
problems, collecting contextual utility, building knowledge
Solutions
are options to address contextual utility
Tension
between contextual utility and solutions
Product as a
collection contextual utility
Product
as abstraction general tools from contextual utility
Product design
How to grow problem options
How to grow solution options
Obvious
problems: person struggles to achieve goal in specific context
Wicked
problems: it’s hard to pinpoint what’s wrong
Problem: lack of trust
Definition:
People don’t want to help each other. Instead, they want to pursue
individual inerests.
Impact:
lack of incentives to cooperate
potential for deceit
potential for miscommunication
Problem: lack of shared
intent
Definition:
People don’t know what other people need and hope to achieve
Impact:
People go in different directions
Rework is likely
Problem: lack of shared
sense of quality
Definition:
People don’t have a shared aesthetic / sense of “good”
Impact:
Communication is reduced to either contextual utility or abstract
theorizing
No shared space to pursue mastery destroys motivation
How to
build trust, shared sense of quality and shared intent
Trust, shared sense of quality and shared intent are all connected.
If I’m not willing to help you (trust), I will not care about your goals
(shared intent). If I don’t care about your goals (shared intent), I
won’t get up close to your sense of quality. If you don’t trust me, you
won’t tell me your goals or your taste.
Is it confusing? Make it
explicit.
Confusing contextual
utility? Enumerate it.
Contextual utility is specific. In contrast to an abstract sense of
quality, contextual utility is bound to time, place, people and goals.
Use that. Don’t reduce situations before you understand them. Collect
each context.
Each case of contextual utility is an option you may choose to
address. How valuable is it? For whom? Is it hard to solve? Does it
align with your vision and the problem space you care about long
term?
Seeing these categories at 2022-12-31, I feel myself hesitating.
Where’s the quality? Is it unnamed? Let’s see where it fits.
observing quality
You can observe your own reactions to quality in real time. To signify
an observation of quality in time, put a timestamp on it! Then you’ve
bound that judgment to a place and a time. That will come in handy
later. You’ll wonder what you were thinking. What you meant. Why. And
you might want to change your mind.
implied quality?
I don’t really see implication and quality as being connected.
quality encoded as aphorism
Perhaps you can formulate what you really think is good as an
aphorism. People have done that before. There’s a list in Aphorisms, scroll down to the bottom.
contextual utility — the meat
This is the easy one! If quality as observation and quality as aphorism
is hard, just focus on contextual utility. It tends to be easy to talk
about. Good for someone somewhere at some point in time tends to be
good. At least that’s a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.
And perhaps quality doesn’t fit into a box. At least some part of it.
Silent, nameless.