Pioneers, Settlers and Town Planners - blog.gardeviance.org/2012/06/pionee… ... it's an old model, started 16 years ago, based upon a paragraph in Accidental Empires (1993) ... however, I need better words, I'm lousy at naming things ...
... so the pioneer, settler, town planner model and the system of theft are all related to different attitudes within an organisation - blog.gardeviance.org/2015/03/on-pio… and designed around the idea of constant evolution with change flowing through the company ...
... what I need are three better words for pioneer, settler and town planner. Some people are uncomfortable with the words for understandable reasons. So any suggestions?
So, once possible starting point is ... pathfinder, investigator but ... then what?
A word that describes that critical and brilliant town planning attitude.
Suggestions welcome.
X : Is the problem "settlers"?
Me : It's a problematic word. Unfortunately when we use the word settler in common language, what we often mean is invader i.e. it was someone's home before another group started "settling" there or to be more blunt invaded the space ...
... so, I'd rather find a set of words which didn't invoke those ideas.
Hmmm ... mulling this over, I like the idea of 3, 12, 48 ... in a nod to ideal sizes of cell groups.
So, it would become the 3s, the 12s, the 48s ... but it doesn't convey enough the idea that the attitudes are very different.
So maybe mix in primary colours i.e. Red 3s, Green 12s, Blue 48s ... but it's lacking that sense of evolution and change.
That would also create a new set of problems when displaying in visual form. Hmmm.
Maybe I should just get everyone to replace their use of settlers when they mean invaders?
So let us add in that sense of evolution, of change ...
Red Base 3s
Green DNA 12s
Blue Squirrel 48s
... now I need to simplify this down to something more relatable.
Hmmm ... I have no idea how to simplify this.
So until I find better words, I'll continue with pioneers, settlers and town planners.
However, I do want to be mindful that in history when we talk about settlers ... in some cases we mean people that have settled uninhabitated lands (Vikings and Greenland), in other cases we may mean genocidal invaders. So, I do want to find that better set of words.
X : Why change the words?
Me : They create a barrier, I want to find a better set of words that convey the concept but are more acceptable to everyone. It's important ... I just don't know what the words are ... yet.
X : Pioneers?
Me : That's problematic as well. I do want to find a completely new set which isn't associated with genocidal invaders or oppression. The model has been around for 16 years, it'll survive a name change and it needs it.
Ok, I'm starting to warm to the idea of
* maker
* manufacturer
* mass producer
It fits with the model of evolution and the attitudes required. Need to mull on it a bit more.
The maker operates at the genesis / custom built stage of evolution.
The manufacturer operates at late custom through product stages.
The mass producer operates at late product through commodity stages.
It keeps the same flow, the same attitudes, is mindful of evolution ...
... and gets rid of the problematic pioneer / settler / town planner language.
Need to mull on it more but I quite like the feel of it and it fits well enough if I just replace the old words - blog.gardeviance.org/2015/03/on-pio…
X : Is the problem settler?
Me : All the words are problematic. With settler I have two options. 1) Persuade the rest of the world to replace the word settler in history in cases where they actually meant genocidal invader or 2) move myself to using a better word.
I'll move.
The terms
* maker
* manufacturer
* mass producer
Keep with the same intent regarding evolution and different attitudes whilst not causing the same problems as the existing terms.
Need to mull more but I quite like them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
X : When you talk about principles, what do you mean?
Me : Oh. I use certain words in a specific way which I explain in research reports that I write.
X : Such as?
Me : Ok ...
Principles are the heuristics and rules by which we operate by as described through action.
Doctrine is a collection of principles that belongs to a collective.
Collective is a social grouping of one or more people.
...
Values are the things and qualities we consider important as described by belief.
Competencies are the discrete skills and methods we use.
Capital are the things we own, create and exchange.
When it comes to research, I tend to use the following ...
30% of time to work out a hypothesis.
60% of time to work out how to test the hypothesis.
10% of time to test the hypothesis.
... I'd be curious on others experience.
i.e. about twice as much effort goes into working out how to test the hypothesis compared to developing the hypothesis and the actual test is usually a lot less than working out how to test.
Of course, it's a rule of thumb thing.
X : The point.
Me : None, just a personal observation. The hard bit for me is not the hypothesis nor even running the test (including analysis) ... the really hard bit is always working out how I am going to test something. That's the thing I find diificult. Curious about others.
Ok, I've been deliberately ignoring but now it is time to go and watch. Before I start, let me guess ... 1) Boris lies (no surprise) 2) It was not Dominic 3) Gove is ok 4) Laura tries to deflect by questioning Dominic's motives rather than interrogating
... no spoilers please.
Well, that's my opening gambit ... let us go and found out.
Oh, and I take it as read that it's going to be difficult to distinguish fact from fiction because that's the world of kayfabe we live in.
Dominic's stand out lines which gets to the matter at hand was on how Boris put "personal political interests ahead of peoples lives" and how "the senior leadership of the conservative party were not the right people to be running country" ...
Dominic Grieve, the former chair of the intelligence and security committee was very clear on what we faced with Boris - ... so "collapsing under the weight of his own contradictions" was almost inevitable.
X : You're a fan of Dominic Grieve?
Me : I disagree with him on aspects of policy including brexit. But, I have respect for him. This is not something I have for Boris.
X : You seem negative with this Gov and press.
Me : Dominic Grieve (former chair of the intelligence and security committee) described Boris as a ‘vacuum of integrity'. I understand the need to maintain political balance but silence on these matters is complicity in them ->
X : You're very anti-Tory!
Me : No. I'm very anti "this form" of Conservatism. I have a great deal of respect for many of the ideals presented by one nation Tories but this current lot is not that. Integrity, transparency and challenge all matter.
X : You don't think there is integrity, transparency and challenge?
Me : I think it has shifted towards manipulation, secrecy and cronyism. I do not view this as healthy for our society. I do not trust Boris.
X : May?
Me : I disagreed with May. I had more trust though.
Social media is "killing people" ... alas it has made it cheaper for bad actors to target and manipulate people rather than encourage a society built on doing good and educating. However, mainstream has been complicit. Look at Fox News. How is that allowed to broadcast? ...
... the difficulty with "managing" social media is it also has enabled many positives i.e. Masks4All. It also challenges existing orthodoxy and power structures (European Soccer League, Meals for Kids). I don't see that happening so much with mainstream broadcasters ...
... so yes, there needs to be a Gov push towards integrity, transparency and challenge within the media. However, this has got to include mainstream. There is no way on earth that Fox News and its like should ever be allowed to exist.