Praxis
7th February 2012, 04:52
I feel compelled to share this tool with this community:
I always analyze events through four different perspectives, actually not really all four because as you will see two of them does not require much use. It feels logical to me and maybe it has to do with way to many hours of Law and Order(Dont deny you heard the bass sound Bah Bum in your head) when I was younger.
My four lenses are as follows:
1. People are acting in good faith and succeed.
2. People are acting in good faith and fail.
3. People are acting in bad faith and succeed.
4. People are acting in bad faith and fail.
Beyond this one must look at motive and opportunity. I think the number one thing people should investigate in any event is who profits. Sometimes, this can not be determined at the time of the event but eventually it will reveal itself.
By people I mean any group, individual, etc that can replace the term people. It is really a place holder for when an event occurs and the relevant people are inserted into the equation.
By good faith I mean that this(these) actor(s) has(have) an honest intent where no harm is intended and no party is used or abused for the benefit of others. This means that an honest and fair transaction/event/outcome was intended for both parties to their mutual benefit. When this actor succeeds it means that this outcome/transaction/event transpired like they wanted to and all parties involved are happy with the outcome. There can be cases where the outcome is not necessarily positive and a party will not be pleased but it would not be the case of the agent we are examining. For example, the police investigate a homicide and find the person who killed. The family would not be happy because of the overall circumstances but would but satisfied that the killer was apprehended. This is just an example of what I meant by all parties might not be happy but "justice" was done. I do not want to get bogged down in the semantics of this example because I am aware of the justice systems failings. It was merely a device to show a point.
By bad faith I mean that the agent is not on the up and up. They are acting, for lack of a better word, like a Ferengi. They are trying to swindle and get the better end of the deal at another's expense. They will make an agreement and then subvert it for their own needs. These people say one thing publicly and then do another privately. These people are by definition the conspiratorial agents of the world.
Case 1. Does not really need to be used all that often, only to check consistency. When case 1 occurs, generally the world is a better place because of it. This could be as small as a person helping another who has fallen because of ice to averting the path of someone in dire straits.
Case 2. This is an unfortunate case but it does occur. These cases need to be examined thoroughly. The main for investigation comes from the fact that this case will also play out very similar to the case 3. However, during the investigation it should become apparent that it is one or the other. Even after something has been determined, as conclusively as possible, to be a true case 2, investigation allows for this failure occurring the future. The best way to learn is from ones mistakes. By studying the instances in which you do not succeed you reinforce what should be done differently the next time a similar situation happens.
Case 3. This case requires the most attention and time to determine. However, time is the canary in this mine, unfortunately. Because who gains might not be determinable right away, these case remain open out of necessity. Take Sept 11. On Sept 12, for most people of the world, who gains is not totally clear. Even after the first invasion, who gained the most is not totally clear. Now looking back ten years, one would have to willfully ignorant to know who gained from those events and the events that followed them. I will leave it at that.
Case 4. This is also a good case because the person who intended ill in a transaction failed to get his way. So in a sense, this is a Case 1 scenario.
I hope that this helps at least one person. I know I find it to be a useful tool for myself. I wanted to end with "I've been smiling lately, thinking about the good things to come"
I always analyze events through four different perspectives, actually not really all four because as you will see two of them does not require much use. It feels logical to me and maybe it has to do with way to many hours of Law and Order(Dont deny you heard the bass sound Bah Bum in your head) when I was younger.
My four lenses are as follows:
1. People are acting in good faith and succeed.
2. People are acting in good faith and fail.
3. People are acting in bad faith and succeed.
4. People are acting in bad faith and fail.
Beyond this one must look at motive and opportunity. I think the number one thing people should investigate in any event is who profits. Sometimes, this can not be determined at the time of the event but eventually it will reveal itself.
By people I mean any group, individual, etc that can replace the term people. It is really a place holder for when an event occurs and the relevant people are inserted into the equation.
By good faith I mean that this(these) actor(s) has(have) an honest intent where no harm is intended and no party is used or abused for the benefit of others. This means that an honest and fair transaction/event/outcome was intended for both parties to their mutual benefit. When this actor succeeds it means that this outcome/transaction/event transpired like they wanted to and all parties involved are happy with the outcome. There can be cases where the outcome is not necessarily positive and a party will not be pleased but it would not be the case of the agent we are examining. For example, the police investigate a homicide and find the person who killed. The family would not be happy because of the overall circumstances but would but satisfied that the killer was apprehended. This is just an example of what I meant by all parties might not be happy but "justice" was done. I do not want to get bogged down in the semantics of this example because I am aware of the justice systems failings. It was merely a device to show a point.
By bad faith I mean that the agent is not on the up and up. They are acting, for lack of a better word, like a Ferengi. They are trying to swindle and get the better end of the deal at another's expense. They will make an agreement and then subvert it for their own needs. These people say one thing publicly and then do another privately. These people are by definition the conspiratorial agents of the world.
Case 1. Does not really need to be used all that often, only to check consistency. When case 1 occurs, generally the world is a better place because of it. This could be as small as a person helping another who has fallen because of ice to averting the path of someone in dire straits.
Case 2. This is an unfortunate case but it does occur. These cases need to be examined thoroughly. The main for investigation comes from the fact that this case will also play out very similar to the case 3. However, during the investigation it should become apparent that it is one or the other. Even after something has been determined, as conclusively as possible, to be a true case 2, investigation allows for this failure occurring the future. The best way to learn is from ones mistakes. By studying the instances in which you do not succeed you reinforce what should be done differently the next time a similar situation happens.
Case 3. This case requires the most attention and time to determine. However, time is the canary in this mine, unfortunately. Because who gains might not be determinable right away, these case remain open out of necessity. Take Sept 11. On Sept 12, for most people of the world, who gains is not totally clear. Even after the first invasion, who gained the most is not totally clear. Now looking back ten years, one would have to willfully ignorant to know who gained from those events and the events that followed them. I will leave it at that.
Case 4. This is also a good case because the person who intended ill in a transaction failed to get his way. So in a sense, this is a Case 1 scenario.
I hope that this helps at least one person. I know I find it to be a useful tool for myself. I wanted to end with "I've been smiling lately, thinking about the good things to come"