There is an interesting paradox in the thinking of our culture.
More and more, items for consumers - from electronics to food products - are being marketed as easy, convenient, time-saving and the like. Occam's Razor rules in many regards; making things simple sells.
However, there is still a persistent mindset that things complicated, projects done 'the hard way' contain an inherent quality that makes them better in some regard. If the job is too easy, obviously, it is worth less.
And again we come up against a binary opposition in our culture. (For the record, by "our" I am referring to Western First World. I am well aware that my observations may not hold outside of that reference.) The binary opposition is one of simple/complex. The curious thing is the way that positive and negative aspects of this opposition seem to get tangled. The easy way is not always the best way; the hard way is not always the right way - the reverse also holds true. Could it be that we are actually looking at something in a situational manner for once?
Of course things are situational. Any problem needs to be approached as its own entity - such is common sense. But how often do we actually do this? Ever felt a task too easy for its reward, or needlessly complicated for the gain?
We all fall into certain ways of thinking. We label problems before we have come up with their solutions. This is not even taking into account the taboo fact that certain tasks are easier or harder for different people. All are not created nor trained nor educated equally.
So why? Why become frustrated at a problem or unsure of a reward because of the apparent (respectively) difficulty or ease? Are not all problems and tasks to be taken merely as they are?
4 comments:
Sometimes, doing things the hard way is more interesting/fun! Especially when the reward is "thing works normally again."
Point of note- while I get the idea of this post, it just kind of trails off at the end. Might want to throw in a specific example somewhere, otherwise the interchangable use of "difficulty/ease" generalizes the whole question.
Sorry about the generalization. The point is to get people asking questions and to generate discussion. I find that if I wrap things up all neatly, there is a human tendency to simply say "Oh, how interesting..." and move on.
I agree that some sort of example would illuminate this perspective better...
So the motivation is misguided? Indirect? If the motivation for a task is simply the social or financial gain at the end, then why *should* someone take on a task that is more difficult? Isn't this really a question about people not doing their best?
I think calling it a "paradox" makes it sound more mysterious than it actually is. People's priorities are often dictated by advertisements and summed up in cliches (especially the thought-terminating ones). We are conditioned to think that when everything is made easier, we have made the world a better place. The words "easy" and "convenient" have substituted accomplishment. It's another way of perpetuating the idea that everyone is equal- equally *entitled* to the treatment that we are all winners deserving of the most convenient services and products.
The simple/complex argument sounds like an argument to justify/condemn a less-than-stellar performance or result, such as someone earning millions from internet sales while not doing much work versus a man who worked hard his whole life for pennies a day. So which person did it the "best" way? There are too many factors and biases to consider before judging, yet that is what people do.
If tasks are merely taken as they are then people would see themselves as they really are- perhaps it would be a humbling experience.
goodjob!........................................
Post a Comment