QC as It Intersects with Difficult Subjects
- September 21, 2019 at 8:05 pm #242315
abstractistParticipant@abstractist Include @abstractist in your post and this person will
be notified via email.
As an American well aware of the burden of our unique oorlog well past the basic understandings from school and many club orientations, I enter into this field again noting pressure against 6Sigma and QC understandings.
Basic understanding of pressback includes: not recognizing value even when demonstrated, hard headedness, refusing to open minds, etc. There are resources on this.
However, there is a political red bead supply going on in many BB or future BBs or similar who have done the classroom and real life work. We can demonstrate via statistics the need to reduce blood libel and superstition around women in the workplace, ethnic and “racial” differences, etc. We can also use statistics to work around “subjection” in discussions of liberty, etc.
But sometimes, without the choice of the person in question, folks still see someone as the put-upon unwilling and unwitting actor in an illegal childhood film — or other difficult intersections. As we all know that QC is about moving forward, removing red beads and persisting in creating channels of resource with improvement and “no ceiling” experiences for all while removing error.
It seems a great fit, politically and more, for folks of aptitude of all backgrounds with the resilience to say what they need to to work in this field. I was able to study under second generation Dr. Deming with As, noting that my comfort and their discomfort knowing what had happened in my childhood was not going to reduce me to tears or worse — yet people keep playing the suicide game.
My question is thus: With the current climate of empire and pressback to QC, how are we integrating QC into civil discussions of law and extralawful life? The republican and democratic (not the parties) counterbalance has always worked to relieve worries of QC or QC-free decision making run amuck.0September 21, 2019 at 10:17 pm #242322
Robert ButlerParticipant@rbutler Include @rbutler in your post and this person will
be notified via email.
In other words, you have noticed some people are not interested in the results of a careful analysis and prefer to go with their gut reactions. It’s been this way ever since homo sapiens emerged as a distinct species and, barring some natural selection pressure that favors logic over emotion, there’s not much you can do about it in the short term and, on an evolutionary time scale, you won’t be around when and if that kind of selection pressure arises and changes the species from homo sap to homo sensible.0
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.