In my last post. I wrote about the first of two takeaways I drew from Christopher Blattman’s stunningly good, Why We Fight. As was the case then when I wrote about Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), I won’t be focusing on the most important things most readers would take away from his book. Instead, I want to home in on the other new thing—design thinking—that I found in his book from the point of view of someone who has been a professional peacebuilder for longer than Professor Blattman has been alive.
I had one frustration with it that you might be able to help me clear up.
At one point you are making the argument for creative design thinking, in opposition to incremental change. Then in the next paragraph you seem to be describing creative design in practice by using the analogy of experimental changes in direction while navigating.
My frustration is that the navigation analogy seems to me rooted in the concept of incremental change. What is the concept of incremental change you are arguing against if not a way of saying making small experimental adjustments in course. You seem to me to be arguing both for and against the same strategy.
So I experienced some dissonance at the use of an incremental change analogy to expand on an argument against incremental change. Can you help me see what I'm missing? I'm trying to grasp the principles you are arguing for and the dissonance over the analogy is making it hard for me to put your principles together coherently in my mind.
Great analysis of design thinking. I'm grateful to learn from you!
Thank you for this thoughtful piece.
I had one frustration with it that you might be able to help me clear up.
At one point you are making the argument for creative design thinking, in opposition to incremental change. Then in the next paragraph you seem to be describing creative design in practice by using the analogy of experimental changes in direction while navigating.
My frustration is that the navigation analogy seems to me rooted in the concept of incremental change. What is the concept of incremental change you are arguing against if not a way of saying making small experimental adjustments in course. You seem to me to be arguing both for and against the same strategy.
So I experienced some dissonance at the use of an incremental change analogy to expand on an argument against incremental change. Can you help me see what I'm missing? I'm trying to grasp the principles you are arguing for and the dissonance over the analogy is making it hard for me to put your principles together coherently in my mind.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts here!