Does he give any logical example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cwoodgold
He comes up with all sorts of examples where a certain amount of disorder is actually preferable to order: for example, what's the first thing you do when you pick up a deck of cards that are all in order? You shuffle them, because they're more useful in a random order. He admits that order is also useful; he's just pointing out that in many situations, the optimal amount of order or disorder is something other than perfect order.
I don't agree with his statements that you quote and I think that "deck of cards" example is demagogic. I can give you many similar examples - you put trash in the trashcan in a random order, you use tennis balls in a random order etc. but it does not prove anything. Does he give any logical example?
I cannot accept this "perfect mess" concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cwoodgold
He gives both types of examples: where it's not worth the effort to impose perfect order, or where a degree of randomness is actually preferable to perfect order and sometimes worth spending effort to obtain, as with the deck of cards.
I am really sorry but I cannot accept this "perfect mess" concept and I consider this idea to be a ridiculous marketing trick to sell a book with a controversial title.
You once again gave the same "deck of cards" example which - in my opinion - proves nothing. Randomness is the element of many games. It gives us fun of unpredictability in games. And that is all. Do we need such unpredictability in our projects? Do we need it when we are looking for our car keys or socks?
I've read first paragraphs of the book available from amazon.com. The authors describe an example of two magazine stores on Broadway in Manhattan - messy and tidy. The messy one wins and it is meant to be a "proof" that messiness can be good. I think that authors know nothing about running a business and about a complicated nature of factors that determine if you win or lose.