IN DEFENSE OF NEWSPAPERS -- RESPONSE FROM GERMANY -- A CANADIAN RESPONSE

IN DEFENSE OF NEWSPAPERS – RESPONSE FROM GERMANY – A CANADIAN RESPONSE

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.
© August 31, 2010

* * *

A READER FROM CANADA WRITES:

Hello Jim,

This is interesting but the problem being discussed surely qualifies as a "complex problem" or fuzzball, as Bill Livingston would say.

In a broad sense, this appears to be the "universal scenario" in operation - in the U.S. and Germany.

Everyone agrees there is a problem and then they approach that problem in typical bureaucratic fashion with off the shelf solutions (the feeding frenzy).

I think Bill would say a solution starts with the "front end", don't you? Maybe the proof is in how long the problem has been talked about but how little has changed and, in fact, has worsened.

Thanks for keeping me in the loop.

Best wishes,

George

* * *

DR. FISHER RESPONDS:

George,

You couldn’t be more on the money. But as I’ve implied, this is not natural to either politicians or to people in general. Moreover, it is not only a problem in the United States and Germany, but in all advanced technological societies.

We are inclined to attack symptoms and call them “causes” in a crisis management strategy, and wonder why we never get off the dime.

William L. Livingston IV has dedicated his life to unraveling this societal warp. To his credit, despite programmed noise preventing people from hearing and heeding him, he perseveres.

My criticism of him is the same criticism I direct at myself. It is our responsibility to find someway through this fog to make connection. Ideas from both of us have been stolen as fodder to the pabulum of HYPE, as one reader pointed out recently regarding my “SIX SILENT KILLERS” (1998).

My hope is that the design phase, the “front end” as you put it, the careful defining of the problem before organizing some action, will eventually get through and be manifested.

It is why the emphasis in my missives in interpreting Livingston’s D4P has been on these contributing factors that he elaborates on in his book:

(1) Institutional infallibility; (2) business as usual; (3) reifying the status quo; (4) hindsight thinking; and (5) attempting to change culture.

As you point out, we are locked into repeating our problems because we use the same thinking that caused them. It is impossible to get beyond our problems as no less than Einstein has reminded us when we are prisoners to the thinking that formed them.

In Livingston’s next edition of DESIGN FOR PREVENTION, the centerpiece will be the incontrovertible Standard of Care of design. He will challenge any auditor in this next rendition on an objective, rational argument against the claim. Stay tuned.

Be always well,

Jim