One implication of this theory of truth is that practitioners using it *should* be able to demonstrate results. In other words, it is more likely to be true if it works FOR THEM.
So our next question is: is there proof that these practitioners are able to produce novel thinking?
Conversation
With , the answer (to me) is a clear yes. I believe PS is the best currently-known application of JIT principles to knowledge work. I even went back to the source (Taiichi Ohno's Toyota Production System) to verify for myself.
1
1
I recognise the contribution Forte has made to the current state of knowledge work.
Further proof, his synthesis of Toyota’s methods continue to haunt me:
Quote Tweet
1/ In many ways, we understand less about Toyota's success than ever, despite it being one of the most studied companies in history
1
But what about ? What novel insights has he published? Where is his proof of work? Where are the examples of the 'better thinking' that we are promised?
If progressive ideation is that wonderful, we should see the proof in his body of work.
2
To be fair, perhaps Milo does not have a large enough body of work to evaluate. But this makes me down-weight the usefulness of his technique.
But. There is a negative signal in the piece itself.
Milo cites ‘mirror neurons’, a highly discredited finding in neuroscience.
2
I'm not even talking about 'a little discredited', or 'still hotly debated'. It's been 20 years since V.S. Ramachandran popularised mirror neurons. And that's 20 years for evidence to slowly accumulate AGAINST the thesis.
You don't even have to look very far; just google.
2
1
2
"Wait, are you telling me that someone who is trying to promote better thinking used an example of a highly discredited theory IN his example of better thinking?"
Uhh, yes.
So that makes me down-weight the technique even more.
2
The truth is that I don't really have a dog in this fight. I have tried Progressive Summarisation, and it's worked for me. If Milo had demonstrated good thinking, with novel insight scattered in his body of work, I would be willing to give his technique a go.
But, alas.
2
Replying to
(I'm sorry for typing this and making you lose your way in the thread, but: PLEASE boast. I think everything you say increases in believability if you can demonstrate a track record of using your techniques to generate insight!)