<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The fundamental interconnectedness of all things</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/</link>
	<description>Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:12:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist &#124;&#124; Becoming a Technical Leader, by Gerald M. Weinberg &#124;&#124; March &#124;&#124; 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/comment-page-1/#comment-23656</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist &#124;&#124; Becoming a Technical Leader, by Gerald M. Weinberg &#124;&#124; March &#124;&#124; 2007</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/#comment-23656</guid>
		<description>[...] The book reminds me of How to Win Friends and Influence People in that the advice is deceptively simple. If I had read this book even five years ago, I think I would have dismissed it as being simplistic and obvious. For instance, Weinberg describes problem-solving leadership as consisting of &#8220;understanding the problem&#8221;, &#8220;managing the flow of ideas&#8221;, and &#8220;maintaining quality&#8221;, which seem like completely generic management strategies. But with experience at several companies and with the examples that Weinberg uses, I can see how breakdowns in these areas will hamstring any project before it even starts. This is an example of how my greater experience lets me find the value in different perspectives. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The book reminds me of How to Win Friends and Influence People in that the advice is deceptively simple. If I had read this book even five years ago, I think I would have dismissed it as being simplistic and obvious. For instance, Weinberg describes problem-solving leadership as consisting of &#8220;understanding the problem&#8221;, &#8220;managing the flow of ideas&#8221;, and &#8220;maintaining quality&#8221;, which seem like completely generic management strategies. But with experience at several companies and with the examples that Weinberg uses, I can see how breakdowns in these areas will hamstring any project before it even starts. This is an example of how my greater experience lets me find the value in different perspectives. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist &#124;&#124; Optimization Multiplicity &#124;&#124; November &#124;&#124; 2006</title>
		<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/comment-page-1/#comment-11193</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist &#124;&#124; Optimization Multiplicity &#124;&#124; November &#124;&#124; 2006</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:33:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/#comment-11193</guid>
		<description>[...] So what are the reasons I have for not being religious? It sounds like a pretty great deal, doesn&#8217;t it? Happiness, comfort, community, self-sacrifice - what&#8217;s not to like? I think there&#8217;s a lot of value in religion, and I&#8217;m discovering more all the time. But I can&#8217;t get over the idea that faith trumps reason. There are elements of religion that can not be questioned. And I question many many things in life, although not everything. The idea that I&#8217;d not be able to change my mind tomorrow, even if I discover something new, really bothers me. But it may be that I&#8217;m just a commitment-phobe; in the pursuit of having all options available to me at all times, I end up choosing nothing (this is stolen from David Brooks&#8217;s discussion of the bourgeous bohemians&#8217; quest for spiritual fulfillment in Bobos in Paradise, which prompted me to dust off this half-written post and finish it). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] So what are the reasons I have for not being religious? It sounds like a pretty great deal, doesn&#8217;t it? Happiness, comfort, community, self-sacrifice &#8211; what&#8217;s not to like? I think there&#8217;s a lot of value in religion, and I&#8217;m discovering more all the time. But I can&#8217;t get over the idea that faith trumps reason. There are elements of religion that can not be questioned. And I question many many things in life, although not everything. The idea that I&#8217;d not be able to change my mind tomorrow, even if I discover something new, really bothers me. But it may be that I&#8217;m just a commitment-phobe; in the pursuit of having all options available to me at all times, I end up choosing nothing (this is stolen from David Brooks&#8217;s discussion of the bourgeous bohemians&#8217; quest for spiritual fulfillment in Bobos in Paradise, which prompted me to dust off this half-written post and finish it). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: martin tiny</title>
		<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/comment-page-1/#comment-3267</link>
		<dc:creator>martin tiny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:13:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/#comment-3267</guid>
		<description>les cours DALE CARNEGIE ne trouvent-ils pas de difficultÃ©s dans leurs adaptations face Ã  certains concepts ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>les cours DALE CARNEGIE ne trouvent-ils pas de difficultÃ©s dans leurs adaptations face Ã  certains concepts ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist &#124;&#124; Option-full technology &#124;&#124; June &#124;&#124; 2006</title>
		<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/comment-page-1/#comment-2156</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist &#124;&#124; Option-full technology &#124;&#124; June &#124;&#124; 2006</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2006 04:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/#comment-2156</guid>
		<description>[...] The fundamental interconnectedness of all things [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The fundamental interconnectedness of all things [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/comment-page-1/#comment-1683</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:21:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/#comment-1683</guid>
		<description>All good points.  So part of the issue here is that I tend to skew heavily towards the skeptical critical side.  It&#039;s one of the things I don&#039;t particularly like about myself - that I tend to emphasize the negative, or why things won&#039;t work.  And I tend to shut people down too quickly.  So I&#039;m trying to consciously make myself at least try to find the positive in what people say, what truth I can glean.  I&#039;m so skeptical by nature that trying to swing the pendulum may involve overcompensating.  Or something like that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All good points.  So part of the issue here is that I tend to skew heavily towards the skeptical critical side.  It&#8217;s one of the things I don&#8217;t particularly like about myself &#8211; that I tend to emphasize the negative, or why things won&#8217;t work.  And I tend to shut people down too quickly.  So I&#8217;m trying to consciously make myself at least try to find the positive in what people say, what truth I can glean.  I&#8217;m so skeptical by nature that trying to swing the pendulum may involve overcompensating.  Or something like that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seppo</title>
		<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/comment-page-1/#comment-1680</link>
		<dc:creator>Seppo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2006 04:35:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2006/04/27/the-fundamental-interconnectedness-of-all-things/#comment-1680</guid>
		<description>While I think that it is a good thing to not dismiss a viewpoint out-of-hand, simply because one doesn&#039;t &quot;get it,&quot; is a good thing, there&#039;s also the other extreme, which is, at what point do you say that you have to have some process, some standard by which to discern the validity of a particular view?

If you say, &quot;Congratulations, all your hard work paid off!&quot; for instance, *what* hard work are you referring to? Bettering oneself? Learning to exploit those opportunities? Making your skill set or personality appealing to the right people at the right time? You could probably make arguments for many of those. There&#039;s probably a certain amount of luck involved, if you believe in such a thing, so you might argue that point, as well. But while &quot;everything aligned,&quot; is one way of describing things, &quot;the universe was trying to tell you something,&quot; requires some examination. What was it? To what end? Why would one choose to describe something in such vague and imprecise language? Do they mean the universe as a sentient entity? Do they mean as an aggregate of all the interactions the universe has undergone, this is its current state, and the culmination of all that has come before? Once you get to, &quot;It&#039;s a sign from God!&quot; then the immediate question becomes, &quot;What is God? Why is he giving you a sign? What does that *mean*?&quot;

And if you can&#039;t quantify it, examine it, discuss it, at what point do you say, this viewpoint doesn&#039;t pass the test?

I&#039;m not saying, &quot;It&#039;s a sign from God!&quot; *doesn&#039;t* necessarily pass the test, but the question, once you get to the point where you say, &quot;I might not understand everything,&quot; is what metric do you use to test whether you&#039;re on the right track or not?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I think that it is a good thing to not dismiss a viewpoint out-of-hand, simply because one doesn&#8217;t &#8220;get it,&#8221; is a good thing, there&#8217;s also the other extreme, which is, at what point do you say that you have to have some process, some standard by which to discern the validity of a particular view?</p>
<p>If you say, &#8220;Congratulations, all your hard work paid off!&#8221; for instance, *what* hard work are you referring to? Bettering oneself? Learning to exploit those opportunities? Making your skill set or personality appealing to the right people at the right time? You could probably make arguments for many of those. There&#8217;s probably a certain amount of luck involved, if you believe in such a thing, so you might argue that point, as well. But while &#8220;everything aligned,&#8221; is one way of describing things, &#8220;the universe was trying to tell you something,&#8221; requires some examination. What was it? To what end? Why would one choose to describe something in such vague and imprecise language? Do they mean the universe as a sentient entity? Do they mean as an aggregate of all the interactions the universe has undergone, this is its current state, and the culmination of all that has come before? Once you get to, &#8220;It&#8217;s a sign from God!&#8221; then the immediate question becomes, &#8220;What is God? Why is he giving you a sign? What does that *mean*?&#8221;</p>
<p>And if you can&#8217;t quantify it, examine it, discuss it, at what point do you say, this viewpoint doesn&#8217;t pass the test?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not saying, &#8220;It&#8217;s a sign from God!&#8221; *doesn&#8217;t* necessarily pass the test, but the question, once you get to the point where you say, &#8220;I might not understand everything,&#8221; is what metric do you use to test whether you&#8217;re on the right track or not?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

