weird thought/anaology on acknowledging flawed standards
Nov 30, 2018
lemme first describe what I mean by “flawed standards”: strongly accepted principles of industries or fields of thought that are (reveal themselves to be) fundamentally flawed constructs, especially over a long time. this concept is further characterized by the resulting condition of it, that adherents of such a field of though will ignore individual manifestations of its flaws due to their belief that such a standard is perfect, treating such flaws as merely isolated inefficiencies, rather than a fundamental flaw — but still two equal possibilities for such a standard.
it feels like a robust way to tell the difference between these is to identify patterns in flaws over time… it’s like trying to tell if a few minor rips/holes on a piece of cloth are positioned to form a big rip.. or just make the cloth a little more porous