tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922407.post5724235333858865671..comments2024-03-25T22:12:49.064-07:00Comments on Gerald Weinberg's Secrets of Writing and Consulting: Psychology of Intelligent Problem SolvingGerald M. Weinberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05902673055244863609noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922407.post-58360220734844856702015-12-29T09:13:21.561-08:002015-12-29T09:13:21.561-08:00If you can bend it into an S figure you can also 2...If you can bend it into an S figure you can also 2d-ZigZag it to do the split using one cut, or go into 3d and spiral the gold bar and also only use one straight cut. If you have a 4d cutter, you also only need one cut. Don't think there are any other 1d-binary-2-cut solution easily available. No mention of a straight cut though... also not mention of the no-pay-spend-2-exchange assumption. Yes I always have issues in-side the box :-)<br /><br />Currently I work for/with a solution architect - 10 years younger than me - who tells us to write down our assumptions when we do the estimates / sw-design. Of course there is not enough "room" for all of the assumptions - some are just so implicit and tacit that everybody knows then . . I do wander what they are.Lars Outzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15363725113611239111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922407.post-75645273934577716882015-12-10T08:14:59.261-08:002015-12-10T08:14:59.261-08:00"Who wants to be in Mensa anyway?" - I&#..."Who wants to be in Mensa anyway?" - I've thought about taking a test to qualify for membership, but what if I fail? I'd rather not join than possibly find out I'm only in the top 3%. :)Danny R. Faughthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16819803428314315934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922407.post-27678992127702742042015-09-02T14:03:28.176-07:002015-09-02T14:03:28.176-07:00John,
thank you for your comments, which are total...John,<br />thank you for your comments, which are totally correct, relevant, and useful. As you point out, I was only commenting on a subset of all psychologists, trying to emphasize how dangerouis and widespread their influence can be. I hope all my readers will read the references you cite, and take your message to heart—along with my message to stop trivializing thinking.Gerald M. Weinberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05902673055244863609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922407.post-9869248100499357752015-09-02T13:07:33.821-07:002015-09-02T13:07:33.821-07:00Interesting observations. While it is true that m...Interesting observations. While it is true that much of the laboratory research on decision making and problem solving is framed around closed problems that are designed to have one "absolutely right answer" so that performance can be scored right or wrong by the experimenter, there are significant numbers of psychologists (among others) who recognize that most problems in the world are "open" with many satisfying solutions. This was particularly true of the early Gestalt psychologists (Seltz, Duncker, deGroot, Wertheimer). You might look at two papers by Lindblom on "Muddling Through)" (1959, 1979) that are more representative of how people manage complexity in everyday contexts. Many of us psychologists have become skeptical and critical of a decision literature designed around puzzles that trivialize thinking. <br /><br />I agree that "intelligence" testing is one of the areas where psychologists have tended to be blinded by hubris and by the financial rewards associated with the testing industry. But this is not true of all. <br /><br />If I were to blame anyone for trivializing complex problems and decision making it would be the Harvard Business School's approach to management by Spreadsheet that is analyzed quite nicely in Saul's Voltaire's Bastards.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693078925909010544noreply@blogger.com