"Splitting Hairs" means to become hyper-focused on small differences that might not be very important in the grand scheme of things. I believe that since we have the ability to find information on anything at our fingertips, we have become even more decisive based on these small differences, worrying more about being right on the minutiae, than being right with the overall outcomes. Yes, the devil is in the details, but perhaps these days that means that we spend all our time in discussing detail, very little time doing something productive.
I think that it is an optimization problem, where in order to optimize, people spend an inordinate amount of time optimizing some aspects of the process, whilst others become bottlenecks. I think that when it comes to personal approach, a line of best fit where heuristics are used is probably the better way, As whilst each aspect might not be as effective as it could be, together they benefit from compounding and flow effects, so the overall output is higher.
Don't skip leg day
Details are important to get right, but they aren't always the best way to get started. It is good to do the research, but finding an "okay" approach and giving it a go is a great teacher and then, refinement can happen. This is what I have recommended to good effect in skill development, and I think it is pretty much the same with everything. The people who get too stuck on the details rarely end up ever getting past the details, because there is always a higher resolution, more accuracy possible.
At some point, one has to pull the trigger and put what is learned into practice, but when there has been so much effort in the details, it can be hard, because the cost of failure goes up. Rather than failing fast, reviewing and reiterating, it is a drawn out process that puts more and more pressure on the release. For example, one of my colleagues was working on a project whilst at Nokia for two years and the release date kept getting pushed back further and further, as tiny adjustments kept being made and the project manager was not ready to release until perfect. A competitor released the feature and even though they then released the following day, it was too late, all that work by hundreds of people was wasted, as it made little market impact, the first mover took the lion's share.
I am more of a "learn as I go" kind of person, which results in a lot of fail fast activity, but activity nonetheless. I was talking to a Sales Leader today about some of our internal processes I am looing to define and improve upon and they mentioned how one of the problems is, that there has to be activity. No matter how good the process is, if it isn't put into practice, it is useless - and I completely agree. As an enablement manager, not only is the target audience always in my mind when I create anything, so to is how I am going to engage that audience and get them moving. Too many businesses I have dealt with forget that no matter the usecase, tools are only useful when used.
And sometimes, this is a bit of a problem within organizations, especially when developing a new process that requires different activities, because people want "proof" that it works, before it has been implemented and trialed. So, what many do is take the comfortable route where they don't have to change what they are currently doing, even if what they are doing isn't working well.
Over the years, I have seen a lot of this attitude in crypto, where the people who do not understand the technology, economics or proposition, look into the details and compare it to what they know. It is too slow, it is too complicated, it isn't physical, it is unsafe, it is used by criminals..... Yet, they haven't actually investigated how what they know stacks up to the points. For instance, to transfer money to Australia through banks takes several business days and a 12% "handling" fee, despite it being a digital transaction that has zero human interaction. Or ask the question what gives fiat value and watch the blank stares.
Rather than actually investigating, they look at the details they think they know and dismiss, so that they needn't be the ones to change. How many times I have heard the argument that "crypto can't be used anywhere" and then watched them get surprised that there have been cards that carry crypto and can be used anywhere, even with proximity pay. The "details" they carry are no longer relevant, yet, they are still making an opinion based upon what they know.
If however they just gave it a go and started to get involved, trying various things, they would very quickly learn how it works and, how the economy that they thought they knew, really works too. It is interesting how many people will talk about how the economics of crypto can't work, but don't actually now the basics of economics. Earning and spending doesn't make an economist.
And then, the thing that I find really interesting in the comparison is that they continually compare current state of the decentralized technology to the current state of the centralized processes, without considering what could be. Everything has advanced and it really wasn't that long ago when people believed that electric cars could never be viable, because they can't compete against combustion. Yet, they also don't recognize that at some point, the combustion engine couldn't compete against a horse and cart.
For better or worse, technology progresses and will always go through cycles of development that kill off some parts, so that others can grow. While there are rules of economics in nature, the financial economy is a technology and as such, it is going to evolve and advance, driven by our own behaviors. Assuming that because the current economic conditions of the traditional economy is all we know and therefore all we can know, is nonsensical and I suspect going to be very costly.
Whilst it might not be for everyone to ape into crypto as an early adopter or innovator, dipping a toe and staying abreast of the basics should be the least someone does. Because if the economy does start to shift into decentralized waters, being even slightly ahead of the curve would be highly valuable, because it isn't like a product like a car that gets bought as an end user, it is a process that gets used in everyday living. And understanding the benefits means being able to fill gaps on the product surface, either as developers or skilled support, as the technology emerges and improves.
In the grand scheme of the economy, do you think that the current conditions are the best they can be and will remain the same throughout your lifetime? If you believe that is the case, you best double-down and learn all the details you can about it and play the game well. If however you think that things could change, in which direction do you think it will move and how do you think you can take best advantage? What are the things you need to know, before you can act?
The risk isn't in the investment into a new technology, it is in the assumption that the old technology is good enough that it won't change.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
