tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post7455043023055180267..comments2024-01-18T01:02:10.807-08:00Comments on Story colored glasses: ConfluenceCynthia Kurtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-71885621822715440262021-04-28T16:18:27.847-07:002021-04-28T16:18:27.847-07:00Hello [alje]daxi and thanks for the comment! I wro...Hello [alje]daxi and thanks for the comment! I wrote this blog post eleven years ago, but as it happens, I am in the throes of finishing my new book on this topic right now. So soon you will be able to read my book-length expansion of these ideas. I have had the Chinese five elements on my list of related ideas (on the CSF page of this blog) since 2010, so we are thinking alike in that sense as well. Anyway, if you want to talk about any of these ideas, go ahead and send me an email (cfkurtz@cfkurtz.com).Cynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-71954254527557105782021-04-28T13:05:11.905-07:002021-04-28T13:05:11.905-07:00Hello Cynthia!
Outstanding work here. It's ta...Hello Cynthia!<br /><br />Outstanding work here. It's taken my like 5 days to read this, and i still feel like i'm missing a lot.<br /><br />What i have understood reminds me quite strongly of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuxing_(Chinese_philosophy)" rel="nofollow">chinese five elements</a> (or movements): <br /><b>metal</b> moves in, & is associated with autumn, rationality, grief, adulthood;<br /><b>wood</b> moves up, & is associated with spring, spontaneity, curiosity, early childhood; <br /><b>fire</b> moves out, & is associated with summer, passion, resolve, pre-puberty;<br /><b>earth</b> moves down, & is associated with responsibility, long-term planning, and the changes between seasons.<br /><b>water</b> moves wherever it wants, & is associated with resourcefulness<br /><br />there're a few (very strong) breaks, eg, earth & water & their seasons. It seems to map onto cynefin more elegantly, with water representing disorder.<br /><br />i remember an anthropologist friend of mine talking about how groups of people used to have periods of high sociality, being very clumped together in the city in the winter, then break into smaller groups in the summer; this recapitulates the form of the medicine wheel and traditional native american social structures, and contrasts with china, which has been dominated by highly stationary year round agrarianism. the differences may be hiding there?<br /><br />---<br /><br />(when i use techne i mean it in a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techne#Techne_and_technik" rel="nofollow">Heideggerian</a> sense. very sorry i'm just far to brain fuzzy to think of a better word)<br /><br />---<br /><br />also, the medicine wheel speaks very clearly of cycles: <br />we have the cycle of the day, sunrise day sunset night; of the year, the seasons; and of the life, age. we can apply this to cynefin/confluence, and how work cycles, eg<br /><br />the day begins, and the lead barista dials in the espresso machine (ossifying their techne into the machine), creating clarity for the subsequent baristas;<br /><br />spring begins, and the garden is---relative to the planting of seeds---a clean slate;<br /><br />and when we connect this to Stafford Beer's recursive viable systems model, as such:<br /><br />> So you suddenly get this extraordinary image of the viable system called you, at the centre of something like a sphere. Where your organs are part of you and you are part of the family. Something else is part of you and you are part of the church and so on. And there are hundreds of them that's why I call it a sphere, I think it's a nice model. [<a href="http://opendata.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/6/26/SBFCTranscript%20Session%2004Final.pdf" rel="nofollow">source, page 23</a>]<br /><br />all the little viable systems within the organization pass through their own lives, as the organisms pass through their lives, as they die and rot and the shadow passes and new life springs in spring, &c. sprints & scrums & retrospectives & all hands create nested cadences of injections of central authority through the meshwork of the various teams (or something like that?? must think more.)<br /><br />---<br /><br />Oh! and perhaps i should mention, i think of cynefin as being explicitly epistemological in intent, while you seem to be doing something much more ontological here. ie, i think of cynefin of telling me how to approach & understand a problem-space, relative to my own techne & the techne i can draw upon from my close compatriots. confluence seems to be telling me about the actual cybernetic structure of the problem-space.[alje]daxihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05651378964485729157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-15097553143032836072017-06-28T10:57:28.129-07:002017-06-28T10:57:28.129-07:00Anonymous: Your comment is probably spam, but it s...Anonymous: Your comment is probably spam, but it seems less spam-like than most of the spam, so I thought I'd let it through. Wouldn't want to disrespect Porter, Texas, or bravery. Thanks for your possibly real comment!<br /><br />CynthiaCynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-7036301325776318312017-06-28T00:40:55.744-07:002017-06-28T00:40:55.744-07:00Greetings! I've been following your website fo...Greetings! I've been following your website for a while now <br />and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Porter Texas!<br />Just wanted to tell you keep up the excellent work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-19448396928314767992010-10-05T15:24:22.881-07:002010-10-05T15:24:22.881-07:00Lee, thank you for passing on the valuable connect...Lee, thank you for passing on the valuable connection. I've ordered "Black Elk Speaks" and will be looking for more confluence in it. Each of these systems adds something complementary to the whole picture.<br /><br />CynthiaCynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-48040648224214587972010-10-04T12:35:59.192-07:002010-10-04T12:35:59.192-07:00From mid-western USA grew the plains people of &qu...From mid-western USA grew the plains people of "Black Elk Speaks" and their Sacred Hoop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Elk_Speaks. <br /><br />These people lived after the Medicine Wheels and before the Cynefin framework, but on the continuum about which you write. Their Sacred Hoop of Life gives a high-plains version added to the confluence.<br /><br />Thanks for the nice piece.Lee Myersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-17437977477189052932010-09-16T05:44:04.917-07:002010-09-16T05:44:04.917-07:00Jurgen, thanks for the comments. It appears that m...Jurgen, thanks for the comments. It appears that my experience of the use of the words complicated and complex has differed from yours. If you Google "complex versus complicated" you will find many people using the distinction as I do; but you may have seen different things. That happens. My guess is that you will help people more if you pay attention to that fairly common usage, but of course you are free to ignore that advice, as we all are.<br /><br />I believe every framework clears up many misunderstandings, and every framework generates many misunderstandings. No one of us has all of the answers or none of the answers. May we all use what we find around us to make sense of things.<br /><br />CynthiaCynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-62937641002801274482010-09-16T04:22:44.330-07:002010-09-16T04:22:44.330-07:00Oh, and by the way, confusion started _because_ sc...Oh, and by the way, confusion started _because_ scientists themselves repurposed the word complexity (which was already used by many people to mean things that aren't simple.)<br /><br />See for example the work of Roger Sessions and his attempts at reducing complexity in IT systems:<br /><br />http://www.objectwatch.com/whitepapers/ITComplexityWhitePaper.pdf<br /><br />I disagree with Roger's use of the word complexity. But the confusion is already there. :(Jurgen Appelohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01159223378289101264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-45148717478751486702010-09-16T04:11:30.097-07:002010-09-16T04:11:30.097-07:00Actually, the words complicated and complex have e...Actually, the words complicated and complex have existed for centuries, and long before scientists and researchers started attributing a different meaning to complexity.<br /><br />And I only see agreement in that all complexity scientists use the word complex for self-organizing systems.<br /><br />But I _don't_ see agreement on what complicated means and how it relates to complexity. Only few people have actually tried to address this issue. And then, usually, the see complicated and complex as different domains. While I propose that they are about different dimensions.<br /><br />I believe my proposal finally clears up many misunderstandings. And, given the comments on my blog post, almost everyone seems to agree with me. :)<br /><br />Thanks!Jurgen Appelohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01159223378289101264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-68729167341021292092010-09-09T08:13:55.898-07:002010-09-09T08:13:55.898-07:00Jurgen, thanks for the comment! I totally agree th...Jurgen, thanks for the comment! I totally agree that many frameworks should flourish and that the more the merrier. <br /><br />The only issue I have with what you have outlined is that the use of the distinction between complex and complicated (to mean self-organization versus organization) is strong and widespread. Repurposing complicated to mean something that can be complex and can be ordered ... might be hard for people to understand and use. I'm all for coining new words, but saying "this doesn't mean what everybody has been saying it means for decades, it now means this" tends just to confuse people. <br /><br />I like the distinctions you have drawn, but I have two reservations: One, the name, as I said; and two, sometimes the line between simple and shall-we-say involved is difficult to place in complex and chaotic systems. You can get some pretty "involved" behavior in a system with only a few elements, from what I've seen, and you can get behavior that looks simple in systems with many elements. <br /><br />But it's all useful food for thought!<br /><br />CynthiaCynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-45713820029987694162010-09-09T00:06:32.760-07:002010-09-09T00:06:32.760-07:00Hi Cynthia,
Thanks for your comment on my blog. I...Hi Cynthia,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment on my blog. I'd be happy to discuss the various models.<br /><br />One things that has bugged me recently about the models of Snowden en Stacey is their distinction of complexity versus complication. The more I thought about it the more I thought it wasn't useful for me to distinguish between different systems.<br /><br />Dave described in one of of his posts that he split the ordered domain into simple and complicated. And I thought, "why doesn't he do that with the complex and chaotic domains as well?" Because some complex systems (for example: three-body problem) are much simpler to describe and understand than others. And some chaotic systems are much simpler than others.<br /><br />And then it dawned on me that structure and behavior are two dimensions. There are ordered, complex and chaotic systems, and all of them can be either simple or complicated. For me, this makes more sense than a separation of complex and complicated in 2 domains.<br /><br />As for the difference between your model and mine: I don't distuingish between degree of imposed order and degree of self-organizations. They are one dimension in my model. You don't seem to distinguish between behavior and structure of a system. When combined that would make 3 dimensions. That's probably a bit too hard to draw, and hard to understand. Which doesn't help people in their sense making. :)<br /><br />Of course, they are all just models (excuse me: frameworks). I suggest people use the model they think is most useful to them. :)<br /><br />Thanks for the inspiration.<br /><br />Jurgen<br /><br />http://www.noop.nl/2010/09/simplicity-a-new-model.htmlJurgen Appelohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01159223378289101264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-62726970557930055192010-07-12T11:01:08.962-07:002010-07-12T11:01:08.962-07:00Jon, thanks for the link to the Four-Room Apartmen...Jon, thanks for the link to the Four-Room Apartment framework. Yep, another similar set of ideas. I'm adding it to my list (which is growing and growing). And I didn't know that Open Space (which I like) used the medicine wheel. All great connections and of much use. Thanks again.<br /><br />CynthiaCynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-56242295403163465642010-07-12T07:31:06.181-07:002010-07-12T07:31:06.181-07:00Do you know of the Four-Room Apartment framework f...Do you know of the <a href="http://www.claesjanssen.com/four-rooms/about-the-four-rooms-of-change/index.shtml" rel="nofollow">Four-Room Apartment</a> framework for organizational (and personal and social) change?<br /><br />Claess Jansen, the originator, is Swedish, and from time to time writes with an odd sense of humour (for me). For example, in using the religious terms of God, the Devil, the Holy Ghost, I think he is referring to the archetypes underneath or the symbolic meanings of those names, not the actual entities. From what I've read of his work in the past, I do not think of him as religious.<br /><br />Another perhaps-useful tidbit of information. I am guessing you may know about or have heard of the group process design know as Open Space, which has gained immensely in understanding, popularity and use over the last decade or so. It too uses the medicine wheel as an underpinning 'touchstone of sense-making'.jonhusbandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13103650592174391848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-77419030973486042902010-07-05T13:50:38.929-07:002010-07-05T13:50:38.929-07:00Thanks for the comment, Paula! You make some inter...Thanks for the comment, Paula! You make some interesting points. <br /><br />I wouldn't say the things I blogged about are unidentified DISCONNECTS with Cynefin; rather they are CONNECTIONS with Cynefin, and with other frameworks, some ancient. My goal was to bring our attention to confluences, not divergences (though each have their places and merits).<br /><br />The rest of your comment was so interesting that I've made my response (which was getting too long for a comment) into another blog post. See "Of hypotheses and tools, models and frameworks." Thanks again for the thought provoking response.<br /><br />CynthiaCynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-85360436242526609292010-07-02T09:51:55.615-07:002010-07-02T09:51:55.615-07:00Seriously, any one who can lend some insight into ...Seriously, any one who can lend some insight into unidentified disconnects with Dave's model, I'm listening, actively. And everything 'else' that you're looking at is all relevant.<br /><br />But I have one major issue with where you supposedly have commonalities with Cynefin. What the heck is "known" in a business and how is it "known" and who qualifies its validity?<br /><br />I've found of more recent that there is a lot of things 'believed' to be known. But I've also gotten in the habit of actually trying to validate long-held beliefs -- things that businesses fundamentally operate off of. In most cases there is nothing to support the belief -- ok, in many cases there are 'appearances' (I like to think of them as "apparitions" of truths), and often there are people paid to defend the appearances, but they don't DO anything -- at least not the things needed to be done for the purpose of the label they bear/defend.<br /><br />That's only half of it. Even if we did "know" something and it was valid, where is the validity in the label "simple"? I challenge you to find such a reality and offer it as evidence.Paula Thorntonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00561529494321993583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-9145190401155395802010-07-02T09:01:16.480-07:002010-07-02T09:01:16.480-07:00Peter, thanks for commenting. You make a good poin...Peter, thanks for commenting. You make a good point and I agree that every style of visualization requires some understanding and practice (and perhaps some natural ability) to make good use of. As adults we sometimes forget that we spent years learning how to make sense of these things! <br /><br />CynthiaCynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-28082336043170881742010-07-02T00:46:07.331-07:002010-07-02T00:46:07.331-07:00Hi Cynthia, Thanks for your interesting story here...Hi Cynthia, Thanks for your interesting story here and I can remember such a discussion on 2D vs 3D models. I suppose computer 3D graphics must help these days (see the great example in the opening of Young et. al. "Visual Statistics: Seeing Data with Dynamic Interactive Graphics" where they show that 3D visualisation is needed to *see* the problems with the Randu random number generator) but to be honest, I had a huge problem initially even with 2D. I was one of those people who'd sit in my hotel room looking blankly at the floor layout diagram used for fire escape instructions and not be able to see that this diagram was truly a representation of the corridors and rooms I'd walked past from the elevator to my room. So I would add one needs to be aware that some people struggle with any diagram form of visualisation. Another example was a lovely diagram illustrating Napiers logarithms (it was some sort of machine that illustrated the relationship between logs and the natural numbers) - it took me years to figure out the diagram but I could understand the argument given in the book because they'd also place the differential equations under the diagram - that I could understand). Anyway - I loved your story here and think there are some great and positive comments from other readers. Take care, PeterUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04832830098801987176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-77192661447727756412010-06-29T10:10:48.139-07:002010-06-29T10:10:48.139-07:00Julian, thanks for the comment and yes let's c...Julian, thanks for the comment and yes let's connect (email is cfkurtz at cfkurtz dot com). <br /><br />Whenever I read about techniques with emergent aspects I am reminded of an old quote, possibly from the I Ching, that says times of great potential are times of great danger, and times of great danger are times of great potential. So, while emergent techniques have greater potential in some contexts they also have greater danger in those same contexts - for manipulation, deception and self-deception. That doesn't mean we should reflexively avoid such techniques; it just means we should be aware of both sides of them. It seems to me that nearly everything that works in the unorder side comes inseparably tangled like this. This also connects with stories, which are powerful and dangerous at the same time. As the great philosopher Sting said, the wounds she gave me were the wounds that would heal me. <br /><br />I had not heard of systemic constellations but it seems fascinating (and possibly powerful and possibly dangerous). I just quickly read the Wikipedia article on it, which I'm sure is incomplete. One thing that struck me was that the article said "They are not role playing." That strikes me as odd because it certainly seems to me that they are. People don't need to speak or act to play roles. Roles are agreements, not actions. Indeed that seems to be the whole point of the thing. It also seems a narrative technique, though in a story-making rather than story-telling sense of the term. But of course I know almost nothing about it. Much to learn, as always. <br /><br />Thanks Julian and I look forward to connecting.Cynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-26317293726071903092010-06-29T05:06:33.893-07:002010-06-29T05:06:33.893-07:00Hi Cynthia,
I was one of the early trained cynefin...Hi Cynthia,<br />I was one of the early trained cynefin people, in 2003. I too am pleased to hear the other story, as i have felt your shadow over the years, not in a negative way just a concern that a voice was missing.<br />I 've worked with the framework in my job as a crisis manager(turnaround ceo) ever since, and your perspective is one i have used - i also talk about the collective brain and leadership in the non ordered contexts and management in the ordered contexts.<br />There is a lot more, firstly relationships hold systems together, secondly contextually triggered cognitive filters generating unstable perspectives and of course the raft of emergent tools that have been emerging over the past 10 years. One of my favorites is systemic constellations, which ties in with NLP and your spacial human filters versus linguistic ones. Constellations also provide a unique opportunity for the client to get out of their system in itself an intervention. Which leads me to intervention design, "what do we do?" when we've made sense of it. Would you be ok to continue the conversation off line, i have many questions and ideas which resonate with your story. Julian Still BelgiumJulestillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17313719356548051595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-62576927177963784632010-06-28T13:35:02.760-07:002010-06-28T13:35:02.760-07:00Steve, thanks for the great link! I am reading it....Steve, thanks for the great link! I am reading it. <br /><br />Harold, I suppose it was tredidation on my part that led me to shrink the first figure to an unreadable size. It's pretty messy to read if you are not me. I've just redone it as a better looking diagram, both what I had then and an updated version, and will put them them up in another blog post in a moment.<br /><br />CynthiaCynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-70280746442397239902010-06-26T14:49:43.163-07:002010-06-26T14:49:43.163-07:00You speculated about effects of culture on directi...You speculated about effects of culture on direction. There are some points in this piece <br /><br />http://edge.org/3rd_culture/boroditsky09/boroditsky09_index.html<br /><br />that should be worth following through.Steve Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14771999065792016571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-38896097165433333592010-06-25T11:35:50.443-07:002010-06-25T11:35:50.443-07:00Harold and Irene, thanks so much for commenting!
...Harold and Irene, thanks so much for commenting!<br /><br />On the eyes, I use them mainly to distinguish between the central directorate (who is trying to control the entire situation) and the pawns (who are trying to build connections and just sort of live without trying to control everything). I take your point, Harold, about eyes being useful to represent perspectives, but if everybody was eyes that distinction would be lost. The dots (in my mind) do have eyes; they are just little tiny eyes that look down. They are local eyes, eyes on a small scale. It is the central directorate who looks out over everything (with its giant eye, which I always draw much larger than the dots) and tries to "organize others on a large scale." Of course these are not people, but tendencies within people and situations and combinations of both, which intermingle. <br /><br />The contextualized derivation of Cynefin (where you place items in a boundary-free space and then derive contextually-meaningful boundaries) arose over the course of several long and intense (and productive) workshops in which we worked on improving the depth and quality of sensemaking that resulted from using the framework. In one workshop in particular we contrasted categorization (with pre-existing domains) and contextualization (where domains emerged) and found that contextualization improved the sensemaking that took place. However, we also found that the simpler process was easier and faster, and less prone to creating frustration and abandonment of the process. I wrote then about creating "learning spirals" in which people use the framework with increasing complexity over time. But later I refined that thinking, and in my "Wisdom of Clouds" paper wrote about how I think the MOST sophisticated use of any decision support system is not simply to move "up" on any scale of complexity but to develop facility in using ALL forms of the system and the ability to tack back and forth between them to produce a multi-faceted benefit. Simpler pre-bounded spaces may be a better entry point, but that does not mean they should be abandoned later as inferior. <br /><br />Whether this tacking back and forth is done within one model that can be used in multiple ways, or across multiple models with complementary features that together make up a preferred system-of-use for any particular person, group and situation, is to my mind not that important -- with respect to utility alone, that is. The NAMing of models, and talking about models sharing ideas and features rather than invalidating or subsuming each other, has more to do with mutual respect and fairness than with utility. What is important in our USE of such models is augmenting our individual and collective abilities as best we can using all the tools we have at our disposal. (Which includes coming up with your OWN take on these ideas as well!)<br /><br />Thanks again for the stimulating discussion, I'm enjoying it.<br /><br />CynthiaCynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-60415547056880528192010-06-25T02:22:36.816-07:002010-06-25T02:22:36.816-07:00Cynthia - fascinating account, so thoughtful. I...Cynthia - fascinating account, so thoughtful. I'm working with Dave and only now get the value of the tetrahedrons. Keep those eyes! <br /><br />My experience is that the imagery of black lines that are the boundaries between the domains, can confound people. It makes it a model rather than a heuristic. The result is that in my sector (international development), people put EVERYthing in the 'complex' box thereby really warping the whole idea of gradients and partial co-existence of different states. Dave does talk about that and stresses the gradient notion when people start to make the Cynefin heuristic an absolute (so I disagree with TomG that it is not acknowledged) but most people like to label. <br /><br />Multiplicity of heuristics is good. Tailoring them is good. Cynefin is one option, a useful one for many people who are 'liberating' themselves from linear rational planning and pre-determined indicators etc. But I'm also all for calling these other models other things if they have different labels and axes. So yes, here's to other models rather than destroying the strength of existing ones.<br /><br />Thanks again!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06034124921903114325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-76884599728907723262010-06-24T10:29:28.970-07:002010-06-24T10:29:28.970-07:00Patti, thanks for the thanks, and for putting it i...Patti, thanks for the thanks, and for putting it in such a graceful way. I've enjoyed your blog series on social media, by the way; it has helped put the whole thing in perspective for me.<br /><br />Serendipitously, I was just reading an article about Einstein in the Atlantic magazine, and this quote seems pertinent: <br /><br />'And so Einstein and his new wife, Elsa, set sail in late March 1921 for their first visit to America. On the way over, Einstein tried to explain relativity to [Chaim] Weizmann. Asked upon their arrival whether he understood the theory, Weizmann gave a puckish reply: "Einstein explained his theory to me every day, and by the time we arrived I was fully convinced that he really understands it." '<br /><br />I think there is merit in the elements different models and frameworks share, AND there is merit in the details that differ. It's like I wrote in the brambles paper about organizational silos: both engagement and disengagement have their benefits, and it would be a shame to waste either of them.<br /><br />I think I'll print out your last sentence and tape it above my computer screen. It's motivating!<br /><br />CynthiaCynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5468631352102294695.post-74735533367583470502010-06-24T06:53:29.347-07:002010-06-24T06:53:29.347-07:00Ditto on the thank you for posting this amazing st...Ditto on the thank you for posting this amazing story about an intellectual journey and putting it in a way that makes it so useful for others. I've always been intrigued by how many times I've seen different models and frameworks that, at bottom, are essentially addressing the same primary elements. And this set (because I've been working with Cynefin since the early days that you and Dave first presented at the IKM!) resonates so very clearly for me. <br /><br />I really really look forward to your book.<br /><br />/patti anklamPattihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08016950326956281161noreply@blogger.com