I wonder about the desirability of having as low an overlap as possible. I think the less overlap, the more the problem is "solved"? But if you assume you have low overlap, you won't look for nuances and improvement won't happen?
Feel like in the context of "Fuck around and find out," low wickedness means that there's nothing to find out so there's no point in fucking around. I guess whether this matters is up to what you're trying to do - if you're just trying to complete a task (exploit mode) you want low wickedness, but if you're in explore mode, you make the situation more wicked.
Also, I was thinking about Cedric's wicked and kind learning domains and how they relate to this concept.
2. re: desirability of low overlap, assume low overlap
> I wonder about the desirability of having as low an overlap as possible. I think the less overlap, the more the problem is "solved"? But if you assume you have low overlap, you won't look for nuances and improvement won't happen?
I don't understand this.
This is a sign perhaps that I didn't make things clear in the original.
I stated upfront that I didn't want to repeat McConnell words in details.
My purpose was to make a concept handle of Discover-Design-Build, so I can more easily refer to it in future.
Having said that, I did make one correction as a response to your comment, Chris.
I have added two screenshots of his talk from the ~7 mins segment of his YouTube video I mentioned as the one to focus on.
Hopefully the two screenshots will make clear the following facts:
1. Overlaps are bad. The more there are, the worse it is.
2. Overlaps can be reduced. The amount of overlaps is not immutable.
Great to see you writing again!
I wonder about the desirability of having as low an overlap as possible. I think the less overlap, the more the problem is "solved"? But if you assume you have low overlap, you won't look for nuances and improvement won't happen?
Feel like in the context of "Fuck around and find out," low wickedness means that there's nothing to find out so there's no point in fucking around. I guess whether this matters is up to what you're trying to do - if you're just trying to complete a task (exploit mode) you want low wickedness, but if you're in explore mode, you make the situation more wicked.
Also, I was thinking about Cedric's wicked and kind learning domains and how they relate to this concept.
https://commoncog.com/ill-structured-domains-not-wicked/
3. > Great to see you writing again!
You're too kind, Chris.
Thank you for your support :)
2. re: desirability of low overlap, assume low overlap
> I wonder about the desirability of having as low an overlap as possible. I think the less overlap, the more the problem is "solved"? But if you assume you have low overlap, you won't look for nuances and improvement won't happen?
I don't understand this.
This is a sign perhaps that I didn't make things clear in the original.
I stated upfront that I didn't want to repeat McConnell words in details.
My purpose was to make a concept handle of Discover-Design-Build, so I can more easily refer to it in future.
Having said that, I did make one correction as a response to your comment, Chris.
I have added two screenshots of his talk from the ~7 mins segment of his YouTube video I mentioned as the one to focus on.
Hopefully the two screenshots will make clear the following facts:
1. Overlaps are bad. The more there are, the worse it is.
2. Overlaps can be reduced. The amount of overlaps is not immutable.
1. re: Cedric's piece
> I was thinking about Cedric's wicked and kind learning domains and how they relate to this concept.
I don't know how to respond in the confines of a comment.
Originally I wrote quite a bit here to address this. Then I realized perhaps it's more constructive to post my questions at the original post and at Cedric so here it is https://forum.commoncog.com/t/ill-structured-domains-arent-necessarily-wicked/958