LISTS

Lists are fun because, in most cases, you get to decide what gets taken care of, in what order. I like lists. How about you all?

Lists, you say...

"

dW2005 wrote:

Lists, you say...

yeah lists ;-)~

At my work there is a lists server. It has its own url is literally
lists.[DOMAIN REDACTED].com
There, one can create or edit many kinds of lists. You still get to choose what happens, in what order… but all of it has to eventually happen, and it all needs to be properly documented, because Big Sister is making a list too. Please ensure goals discussed during coaching are logged using SMART criteria.

So do I like lists?

So here's an interesting fact about lists in Japanese: they sometimes use the number one for every entry. This avoids hierarchy and so makes each entry equally important.


The word they use specifically is "hitotsu", literally "one thing" or "first". This is most commonly seen with lists of rules or commandments, particularly those considered sacred or unimpeachable.

I really dig that.

I am a list fiend.
Just ask my Mrs. :)

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

So here's an interesting fact about lists in Japanese: they sometimes use the number one for every entry. This avoids hierarchy and so makes each entry equally important.


The word they use specifically is "hitotsu", literally "one thing" or "first". This is most commonly seen with lists of rules or commandments, particularly those considered sacred or unimpeachable.

I really dig that.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

This avoids hierarchy

I wouldn't say it avoids so much as delays.

Ultimately, in any list of things, one thing is done first, the others later. That which is done first is hierarchically shown to be more important, at least within the narrow context of individual action. Even if what is being listed is things not to do, hierarchy can be exposed by forcing one to choose A over B or B over A.

Now that isn't to say that delay of hierarchy is a bad thing. It can be very wise to put off the presumption that A makes better decisions or does better work than B, until after we've given both as much equality of opportunity to accurately prove their superior merit. But the point there is not to prove equality so much as ensure that inequality of treatment (perception) conforms to inequality of merit (reality).

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that there is no such thing as a perfect circle, but it is very nearly true to say there isn't. If all you do is eyeball it, such a circle might appear perfect at first, but if you get the microscope out there is imperfection along the edges. Equality is like this concept of a perfect circle. If you get precise enough, equality simply does not and cannot exist. Indeed, the only utility of the concept of equality is as an injunction against prejudice, a hopefully temporary strategy while we take the time to properly measure that which matters.

[I was inebriated earlier when I wrote this, and I've tidied up several misspellings and bad grammar.]