tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-592155990763213967.post7577464911924220544..comments2023-10-02T03:38:54.968-07:00Comments on Doing something different: Monday musings on riskHugh Greenwayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09697133865158489682noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-592155990763213967.post-84345639998710922752009-11-16T08:00:36.872-08:002009-11-16T08:00:36.872-08:00About that FT article...
I'm wondering if the...About that FT article...<br /><br />I'm wondering if the real difference in the early jam experiments was that people were inexperienced and generally unfamiliar with having many options. They therefore carefully and fairly considered all options before making a decision.<br /><br />Today, we are so comfortable with a plethora of choices that instead of carefully considering, we have become experts at whittling them down to a manageable few. In my own experience, I see people simply disregarding many valid options because they simply don't fit with their bias and world view. They barely acknowledge the other choices - much less give them a fair shake.<br /><br />I like your risk/learning correlation, and think you are dead on. Why risk something new when the old is working well enough? Change is hard, and when it comes down to it, most people want the familiar and the comfortable. Change leaves you uncomfortable over and over again. <br /><br />I really like how Niccolò Machiavelli summed it up: "And let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as the leader in the introduction of changes. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new."<br /><br />Cheers!<br />Peter Edstrom<br />http://www.edstrom.net/blogPeter Edstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11589533729093114929noreply@blogger.com