An article condemning academic overcomplexity in favor of simplification. As a consultant working in a field that does the same and focuses on pragmatism, actionability, and client-centered output that is simple, simple, simple, this is an interesting argument here. Although part of me longs for the complexity and nuance of academia, the focus on pragmatism is really interesting. If something is interesting but functionally useless what's the point in business? Sure, academia has always done interesting things for the sake of the exercise and business is probably too action-oriented, but where's the sweet spot? This may be an ongoing discussion in this blog. Also, its mockery of the pluralistic rejection of binary interpretations as essentially useless and marginal analysis that has been endlessly repeated brought back stirring echoes of my academic career. What use is "everything is different" at the end of the day?
Great line bringing it all together: "Of course, to defend simplifications always and everywhere is not only anti-intellectual, but dangerous. [But] complexity for its own sake is no virtue." We must preserve a nuanced understanding, but simplification is inevitable and more practical at times as well. As frustrating and ironic as this is, I guess it depends right. Maybe this gets to the larger argument of truth and where these two sides lie - is there an absolute truth we can cut through the bullshit and simplify to attain or is the truth in fact so muddled that everything, and I mean everything, is only so true as it as based on your perspective. The metaphysics of reality are completely rejected and our experience becomes entirely subjective, complicated, and, ultimately, obscures any universal truths that you can glean form it.
That is exactly the conclusion that the complexities dramatically extended by academia has led us to. How far does this go? Is genocide covered by cultural relativism? Where does one draw the line in the sand in the name of human experience? Is there good and evil? I think that solid answers here are tough, and frustrating. The article concludes in a very tentative way, "Perhaps it is time to return to Ockham's principle of parsimony, his so-called razor: 'Plurality is not to be posited without necessity.'" I guess the tough part is defining that necessity and figuring out when it must come to play in favor of the simple, pragmatic lens of polarity. Ay, there's the rub.
The question is, can we draw this line in the sand? There's no doubt we have drifted towards the needlessly complex, but how far back should we retreat?
Great line bringing it all together: "Of course, to defend simplifications always and everywhere is not only anti-intellectual, but dangerous. [But] complexity for its own sake is no virtue." We must preserve a nuanced understanding, but simplification is inevitable and more practical at times as well. As frustrating and ironic as this is, I guess it depends right. Maybe this gets to the larger argument of truth and where these two sides lie - is there an absolute truth we can cut through the bullshit and simplify to attain or is the truth in fact so muddled that everything, and I mean everything, is only so true as it as based on your perspective. The metaphysics of reality are completely rejected and our experience becomes entirely subjective, complicated, and, ultimately, obscures any universal truths that you can glean form it.
That is exactly the conclusion that the complexities dramatically extended by academia has led us to. How far does this go? Is genocide covered by cultural relativism? Where does one draw the line in the sand in the name of human experience? Is there good and evil? I think that solid answers here are tough, and frustrating. The article concludes in a very tentative way, "Perhaps it is time to return to Ockham's principle of parsimony, his so-called razor: 'Plurality is not to be posited without necessity.'" I guess the tough part is defining that necessity and figuring out when it must come to play in favor of the simple, pragmatic lens of polarity. Ay, there's the rub.
The question is, can we draw this line in the sand? There's no doubt we have drifted towards the needlessly complex, but how far back should we retreat?
1 comment:
I really enjoyed the article as well, but, as you say, I think that the "rub" is that simplicity is warranted where simplification is useful. Obviously, one could make any number of issues far more complicated by simply paying a college professor a salary to discuss them. The fact that an idea becomes more complicated does not mean that the further levels of analysis provide any useful information to the interested party.
The value of an idea, any idea, will depend on how much descriptive or analytical power it gives, discounted by how easily the idea can be assimilated by an individual. In that sense, too much complication of an issue for the sake of thoroughness may make an idea harder to assimilate and therefore less valuable, while simplifying a concept too much deprives it of its descriptive or analytical value. As Pirsig put it in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," this act is like using a "metaphysical knife" to isolate the concept one wants to discuss without over- or under-inclusiveness.
Perhaps a good example of this is that most people would understand the idea of "survival of the fittest" fairly easily, even though the more accurate description would mention that the genetic variations are totally random and that such variations may be selected without regard to fitness if it has no effect on the progeny's chances at survival. As Alan Blinder laments, this is a political truth that we must recognize: if an idea can fit on a bumper sticker, people are much more likely to find the idea valuable.
Post a Comment