Blog comments regarding the reading, “The Technology of Foolishness”, written by James G. March
When the author began his discussion of being playful, he observed being playful as a sort of human
necessity. A time when the rules are suspended, and one should just let go. Now this shouldn't be all or
most of the time, but it should happen.
I wanted to put my own spin on this. I've encountered people in my life who have had a lack of
playfulness in all aspects of their life. I've also encountered people in my life who take their entire life as
a joke. Neither extremes, I feel, are organic, and neither extremes lead to optimal success. I find the
people who are loved the most and love their life the most are the ones who can integrate being playful
into their lives, but also control its dosage.
I'll use Dr. Scotch as an example. If Dr. Scotch were to come into class literally dressed up as a clown, I
would have gladly dropped the class with a withdrawal fail and not lose a night of sleep over it. If Dr.
Scotch, however, never smiled, never joked, never gave realistic examples, and thus never allowed
students to identify with him, my learning experience would be much different.
It's playfulness that adds an organic, relatable aspect to experiences that truly makes them memorable
and truly brings them to life. The amount of dosage of that playfulness is regulated by each individual,
and that's what makes us unique.
I believe it requires a certain amount of creativity in order to inject that playfulness and that mercy into
one's everyday life.
Maybe this is all just a toot out the glute, but I mean, this is what I feel like I've learned from my
everyday experiences. Can we still be successful without playfulness? What defines this success? How do
we keep energized enough to stay playful? Just some food for thought.
-
By: Ali Mahmond
I agree with Ali that this reading was a bit more difficult to understand than the last—it definitely took a
couple of times through for some of the claims to sink in. Maybe that's why it hasn't yet made a bigger
impact on the way we live.
What I took from this article is that they way most people currently see the world is holding us back. By
making things structured and rigid, we are impeding the human potential for creativity that is, in the end,
the thing that does the most good for society.
Take school: as students, we're expected to attend so many hours of class a day (normally in the form of
lectures, but sometimes in the form of predetermined labs), take notes on what our teachers tell us, and
then go home and do readings and writings for our classes. Every so often, we have to regurgitate
everything we've learned in the form of a test. Though these tests are sometimes in different formats—
multiple choice, short answer, essay, equations to solve—they are all very similar in that they simply
require us to show up and write down everything that we have learned. There is no room for playfulness
in our education. I'm probably not the only one who thinks this is a bad thing.
This sort of an educational system shapes our society into one that is not very tolerant of playfulness. As
soon as we start receiving letter grades for our work, we as students learn that we are rewarded for
replicating the results the teacher wants us to. Taking creative license on an essay or test is rarely looked
upon favorably, so we learn to not do it. The further one goes through the educational system, the more
one is conditioned to function on a strictly rational level, though at times, it may be more beneficial to
step back from the lectures, notes, and readings to experiment with the knowledge being gained. Can
schools, when it is run under these assumptions, truly be considered the ultimate source of an education?
Or are they turning out millions of individuals who are not performing at their full capacity?
-
By: Caryn DiMarco
I really enjoyed this article, and agree with a number of its arguments. In my opinion, too
much pressure is put on people (particularly children) to make choices that “define”
themselves. Implying a singular definition of a person only limits his or her personal
development; it does not in any way assist someone in achieving their overarching life goals
or ultimate happiness. March’s points about the potentially problematic nature of goals really
impressed me. I had never considered that having goals could be a bad thing; in my
experience, schools, advisors, parents, and everyone else encourage goal setting and
achieving. This puts an enormous amount of pressure on all people to know what they want
and to attain it quickly.
This problem is particularly troublesome as it pertains to young children and young adults.
Children, who are just experiencing the world for the first time, can have their imagination
limited by goal setting and early choices. They should be allowed to invent, experiment, and
play- this is how we will foster young, creative minds that will create the creative capital our
society will eventually need. With regards to young adults, the emphasis on goal setting,
choice, and rationality can place unbearable amounts of pressure on students that are driven
to achieve. I’ve found this to be a particular problem among college students; the importance
of deciding who you are, what you want to do, and how you are logically going to progress to
your overall goal is repeatedly driven into our brains. This can lead to overwhelming pressure,
feelings of anxiety, and fear of making the “wrong” choice. I think that the case of overreasoning is especially prevalent in this age group (along with high school age students.)
I liked March’s explanation of using playfulness as a way to foster development instead of the
emphasis on rationality. His five steps to a playful perception of society were very interesting.
I think, if proposed to society today, many people might seriously question his rationality.
After that though, I believe his model would contribute to an overall happier, more intelligent
society.
-
By: Kayla Klein
This was definitely an interesting article to read since I do believe society favors action that is
consistent with one's values (which isn't a bad thing). One of the reasons consistency is such
an attractive concept is that it makes it easier for us to define ourselves and what we believe
in through action. However, while we tend to focus on how our actions can be in line with our
values, how often are we questioning how we arrived at those set of values? Are we still
being flexible and allowing room for change?
An important point that the author makes is that we need to change our process of
evaluation (so we can make more room for constructive change). Our system of evaluation is
placed against a set of expectations already established before an experiment or experience.
It's possible that our experience could have changed our beliefs but this wouldn't be
accounted for if we simply evaluated the experience by a set of expectations based in the
past. Even if the experience doesn't meet the set of criteria from the past, it can still prove to
be very valuable to us.
A perfect example of this would be conducting an experiment using a pharmaceutical drug
that is intended to help cancer patients but actually ends up being more useful to those with
heart disease. If we only evaluated the drug based on its ability to help a cancer patient, it's
possible we'd lose a drug that could be valuable to another type of patient. All in all, we
actually allow room for creativity and change when we modify our set of expectations after
an experience instead of sticking to a set of expectations based solely in the past.
-
By: Apeksha Saxena
Wow. This article was very interesting to read because so many of the points made were very true in
today's society. Although parts of the article were tough to grasp, the overall message was very clear.
Many aspects of society favor purpose, consistency, and rationality. According to the author, James
March, these things are not inherently bad, in fact they are required for a society to function, but they do
cause creativity and "foolishness" to suffer.
March argues that this "technology of foolishness" could "preserve the virtues of consistency while
stimulating change" (265). One of the key components of the "foolishness" would be playfulness. It
would be hard to have playfulness with all of the boundaries and rules that the current society
implements. When reading about the playfulness, it made me think about how the people that are seen
with real genius in this world do not necessarily play by the rules. They are creative and think outside
the box without having the arm of education and society bearing down on them.
While education is something that is vital in this world, it clearly is not everything. There is a human
element that cannot be taught, but has a very large impact in bringing about "interesting people,
interesting organizations, [and] interesting societies" (265). Education and the best colleges seem to
strive to produce students/people that are carbon copies of one another; they are striving for this
consistency. With all of this education, there seems to be a disadvantage in view of creativity and
choices because the education has already showed you exactly how to make your decisions. And what
happens when those people run into a problem that education has not taught them the answer to? Well,
they probably cannot find a solution unless they open their minds and allow for their own decision
making capabilities to unfold.
Creative people and thinking will always be the way of the future and improving society, the sooner we
realize that "foolishness" may not be stupid, the more well rounded society can become.
-
By: Rachel Houston
This article was interesting it correlated rationality with intelligence and irrationality with foolishness.
Indeed, the author brings up a good point in saying this is how our society currently works. Intelligence is
measured by how logical a person is when there are so many aspects of intelligence. I myself don’t have
a good definition of intelligence, but I do think there are different types of intelligence and intelligence is
relative to many factors, including age group, species, living or nonliving (could a virus be considered as
intelligent?), location, etc. That being said, it could also mean that foolishness (or playfullness) is an
integral piece of intelligence that we are forced to abandon as we get older. In other words, both
rationality and irrationality should be measurements of intelligence.
One other thing to keep in mind is that the definition of foolishness is fluid-it changes with time. At one
point, even Winston Churchill was considered foolish, but that perception changed as people realized he
was right all along. What we imagine is essentially defined as foolish until it becomes a reality.
-
By: Anita Chandrahas
What I found most interesting about March's essay was his ways to suspend reasoned intelligence and
be playful. Of particular interest to me were ways 1 and 3; treat goals as hypotheses and treat hypocrisy
as a transition. Purely reasoned intelligence can sometimes lead to a brick wall upon which there is no
getting past, such as a particularly difficult calculus problem. However, if we step back and look at it
from a different angle, the problem could very well become simple. At the very least, playfulness
functions as a way to recharge or maintain one's current level of reasoning. More often though,
playfulness leads to the discovering of new and improved ways of doing things.
In typical society, we treat goals as absolutes. They are things that we decide we will do and should,
perhaps must, go through with them. However, such a definition can put tremendous stress on
individuals and especially on children, who, as March said, are merely attempting to discover what they
like and enjoy. Of course, discovering what one enjoys is not only for children. If I make a goal to learn
German because it sounds cool and then fail to go through with it because I later realize it is actually
much less interesting than I initially thought, I will be viewed by many people as failing my goal.
Depending on the amount and harshness of the feedback I receive from these people, I will probably be
more hesitant about making such ambitious goals in the future. But, if we treat goals as hypotheses, we
are largely freed from the stigma that involves failing most goals. If I think I want to learn German and
then fail to meet this goal, I will not be any worse off than before, other than possibly having a little less
money in my pocket. With no or little associated stigma, I am free to make another goal, perhaps to
learn a different language, or maybe I would just abandon that idea for a while.
Much like goals, we do tend to treat hypocrisy as changing your absolutes, something one should never
do in our society. However, this misses the major point that people do change. I may have been
mistaken about an idea I believed was truth. To abandon that idea for another or even for its opposite
does not make me a hypocrite. The original idea may have formed and become a part of my values
before I had really thought it over. Fear of hypocrisy prevents us from critically examining ourselves and
our values.
Playfulness in healthy doses can help to rid us of these fears and become more productive and rounded
people as a result. As more and more people become productive and well-rounded, we enhance
creativity around all aspects of society.
-
By: Dakota Deutsch
I didn't read the blog until after reading the article, but after seeing some of these postings, I'm glad I
wasn't the only person who struggled to fully decipher the writing! I guess the part of the article that
resonated with me the most was the section that addressed social norms for playfulness in our society.
The description that March articulates of the way in which "individuals who are good at consistent
rationality" seems pretty accurate to me.
No one has ever mistaken me for a particularly creative (or in the context of this article, playful) person.
Since about age 7 or 8, I have known that I want to be an engineer, and I have been following very
goal-oriented paths throughout my school career. Just like March suggests, I have rarely if ever been
discouraged from doing this; in fact I have been praised and rewarded for knowing what I want and
taking action to get it. Only since I have arrived in college have I even really been introduced to the idea
of encouraging uncertainty in goals and future plans.
I think that the very fact that all of us are in this class supports the arguments made in the article. I'm
sure if we asked everyone why we are taking this course, a lot of responses would discuss the contrast
between this and many of the other courses we must take in our selected areas of study. We desire
classes like this in order to really explore ourselves, unencumbered by the oppressive workloads of the
typical college class. In this class, we truly have the freedom to be playful and creative. I am certainly
looking forward to whatever Dr. Scotch has to share with us tomorrow.
-
By: Ryan Marcotte
This article reminded me a lot of one of my personal experiences in high school. It was my senior year,
and I was at the TFA State Speech & Debate tournament, competing in Foreign Extemporaneous
Speaking, which was my main event. The year before, I had pulled perfect first ranks in the preliminary
rounds and then was the highest ranked individual not to make finals. Naturally, I expected that this year
I would final at the tournament and my goal was to win it. I knew that my coaches, my teammates, my
family, and I expected myself to do incredibly well. So I ended up very nervous in each round, which
was something which came across to the judges and resulted in my pulling bottom ranks in every round.
This was (at the time) devastating, because I was ending my senior year with my worst performance
ever.
So the next day I started rounds in my supplementary event, Impromptu Speaking. Since I had already
messed up my main event, extemporaneous speaking, I didn't really care at all how I did. I took the
tournament as a game, and I was completely carefree in every single round. Turns out this made me a
much better and more confident speaker, let me play around with new jokes and analogies, and allowed
me (7 or 8 rounds later) to win state in the event while trying something innovative that had never been
done in the event before. (Since I was last speaker, I decided to incorporate all previous speakers'
themes into my own and playfully mock them one by one throughout the speech. It ended up working
brilliantly.)
My initial goals put so much pressure on me that they forced me to focus on the narrow set of things
which I thought were important (in this case the information above the speaking style). Once I began to
care less about my performance, I was able to experiment more, and I actually ended up doing a
significantly better job. This is one of the things that March argues. Stringent goals can actually hamper
one's performance, while being more "playful" can allow one to explore new turf and ultimately do much
better. That's not to say that keeping goals isn't important - if I never kept goals, I wouldn't have made
State in the first place. But somewhere along that road there needs to be some foolishness in order to let
people explore new things and experiment with ideas.
-
By: Sachin Shah
March spends much of “The Technology of Foolishness” outlining the forces that shape the choices we
make, weighing the benefits and drawbacks of prioritizing goals and alternatives before each other. In
doing so, he alienates people without the means or resources to make the choices that his first-world
references exemplify throughout the article. In his approach to playfulness, however, he presents a more
universal argument. March believes that playfulness is a combination of both rationale and creativity, a
means of finding “new purpose.”
This concept is most impressively and beautifully evident in the entrepreneurial women of many thirdworld countries now engaged in microfinance. Through organizations such as Women Advancing
Microfinance, the United Nation’s Girls’ Education Initiative, and Kiva, circumstantially uneducated and
unemployed women are able to contribute to respective GDPs in ways the global economy has never
seen before – by finding creative ways to feed practical necessities. Kiva provides specific examples in
Sikiratou Salami, Gun Keshari, and Rose Athieno, women who are breaking out of the poverty cycle and
fighting social prejudices in countries such as Nepal, Uganda, and Ecuador. UNICEF and WHO are
amongst many credible organizations which corroborate evidence of national conditions improving as a
direct result of bettering the social and scholastic conditions of said nation’s women. With an educated
female populace, improvements in both economic and health conditions are not only bound but proven to
follow.
As such, economically disadvantaged women who are able to successfully combine intelligence with their
creative lives are able to not only benefit themselves intellectually, but their families financially and
socially, and their nations economically. March likens the strict adherence to practicality to “manliness”;
the “optimal problem”, then, may very well a resolution in feminine economic culture in desperate
conditions.
-
By: Sarosh Ahmed
If we don't set goals, it will be very difficult to achieve them. But if goals can function as a box (or in the
words of Max Weber, an "iron cage") that orients our activities, we may limit our likelihood of achieving
things we are not intending to do, i.e. operate outside of the box or cage. I would argue, along with
March, that sometimes people's goals emerge from their activities; we discover what we want from our
experiences as well as planning our activities to accomplish our goals.
-
By: Dr. Richard Scotch
This chapter really did bring out some interesting points; however, in my opinion, the author definitely
could have made the reading a lot easier to understand. It seemed as if the language he was using could
have been made clearer to understand.
On the whole, though, I will concede that he does make good points. The culture that has been held in
this world has really kept it from reaching its full potential. In a sense, this can be described by the
physics example of a spring trapped in a box. Humans are the spring: they are able to achieve their full
potential when stretched to the maximum limit. On the other hand, the box is the world and culture of
today. When the spring is trapped within the box, it is never able to reach its full potential. However,
when the box is opened up, the spring is able to stretch and eventually get to its maximum potential.
This is similar to us in today's world as we are trapped and need to break out in order to get to our full
potential. This further plays along with the author's description of goals. In this sense, the box refers to
goals and can further confine humans. In my personal experience, I've realized this trap recently. At
times, I've been so focused on getting into Medical School and keeping my grades high that I've
forgotten the other parts of enjoying what I'm doing. It definitely has opened me up over the recent
times and it has helped me continue to grow. Like the author states, I have realized that goals, while
useful, must be kept in check and not deter from other aspects of life.
On the whole, I think the most important aspect of this argument is that one needs to find a happy
medium between being serious and having fun. If this does occur, one will be able to enjoy the full
benefits of life and have a more enjoyable experience.
-
By: Mayur Patel
I find that this article fails to define "plafyulness" and "foolishness." These are subjective
terms. What I might consider foolish, another might consider sinful. I also find that the article
is severely lacking in examples- had the author given me some examples of a foolish or
playful decision a company can make, I might be supportive of his arguments, but as he does
not, I can only sit here irritated.
One thing that the article mentions that I severely disagree with is his concept of the child
model of decision-making. While yes, it makes perfect sense to say a child knows what they
want so they should be able to get it, that child doesn't always know what is good for them.
The arguments of the article suggest that a 9-year old should be able to take up smoking
because if they want to smoke they should smoke, never mind the possibility of nicotine
damage, growth stunting, lung cancer, etc. It would be a foolish and playful decision on the
part of the adults to let the child take up smoking, so apparently, it is on every end a wise
decision to let a 9 year-old smoke.
One line from the article that stuck out to me the most was "Individuals and organizations
need ways of doing things for which they have no good reason...they need to act before they
think" (259). What does this even mean? Does this mean I can go and punch somebody in
the face because I have no good reason to, and I wouldn't be thinking before my action?
Does this mean a local company should throw cupcakes at random passerby, because they
have no good reason to, and it would be both foolish and playful? How can this be a good
idea? How can anybody or anything benefit from making a decision without thinking about it,
especially when this decision has no apparent good reason to be made, and it could be by
most standards dangerous, but you can just defend your actions by saying it was foolish and
playful?
It is one thing to say that we should all be a little more spontaneous and live our lives by
seizing the day, but it is another thing entirely to suggest that we act foolishly, without good
reason and without thinking.
-
By: Mehwish Khan
This article reminded me of an innovative program at Google called twenty percent time.
Well, innovative in the private sector. Twenty percent time is based on the concept of a
sabbatical borrow from academia. The staff at google realized what a waste of man hours
meetings were, 'you sit twenty people around a table for an hour to solve a specific goal, and
if one or two new ideas are created then the meeting is relatively successful'. Instead of
meetings now the engineers are allowed to spend twenty percent of their effort on an idea
they want to develop. The entrepreneurs at google have been careful not to set goals or
limits for their staff's twenty percent time. And they say it has worked tremendously well.
This "foolish" goalless system has lead to an accelerated creation of innovative ideas on
behalf of the googleplex and the world.
In an ironic twist of fate many state universities are considering cutting the program twenty
percent time was based on, the sabbatical. Proponents of free thought oppose this move
stating the research grant money brought back to a university post sabbatical certainly justify
the costs of financing them.
It is strange how foolishness has switched from the public sector to the private sector, but
can playfulness survive long term in a harsh capitalist market economy?
-
By: Elizabeth Ziegler
After reading this article, I realized that I agree wholeheartedly with most of March's views.
Throughout probably our entire lives, we have been given and taught a set list of choices that
we should do or shouldn't do. We were told to choose the right path in the forked road and if
we didn't go down a certain path, then we wouldn't be successful. There's such a rigid
schedule that we've been taught as children to follow rules, and from that we are limited
creativity.
I agree along with most of my classmates and the article that "playfulness" is a necessity in
life. Through "playing around", imagination and ideas can thrive that we can use to apply to
real life situations and to the choices we make. For example, innovators and entrepreneurs
have to dig into their creative side to come up with ideas. The person who invented silly
bands? He's a millionaire currently, as opposed to other uptight businessmen who are less
unsuccessful by following the typical business route. Also those who do not strictly control
their choices based on high morals usually enjoy life more pleasurably, and why is life worth
living if we can't do the things ("ethically", of course) we want?
In order to fully expand our potentials and capabilities of what us humans can do, I believe
we should modify the education system for the younger generations a bit. Goals are oriented
to give us a purpose and direction in life, so I agree that we should keep instilling that idea in
school. However, instead of portraying job professions like doctors or lawyers as the ideal
job, there should be more attention on other professions that kids might want to consider.
Most children dream of becoming a firefighter or a policeman, but as they grow older their
dreams get shattered because the people around them tell them accordingly that those jobs
don't make enough money, thus affecting their choices. Interestingly enough, children have
heard about dentists but usually do not realize they may want to be pre-dental until later in
life due to scary images of a visit to the dentist. But in school, we limit other possibilities of
pre-dental such as becoming an orthodontist, which kids usually don't hear of until they have
to get braces. Exposing more creative jobs to children is the best bet of inspiring creative
minds.
Overall, I believe that life should be centered around and balanced with the adulthood model
along with the childhood one. As one grows up and becomes an adult, one shouldn't lose the
child within. Life and choices are more serious, but at the same time outside of a professional
level, there should be play time to keep the sanity and also enjoy what life has to offer.
-
By: Emily Chin
I found this a somewhat dense yet thought-provoking read. Parts that particularly resonated with me
were March’s discussion of goals, and (similar to Dakota) March’s list of five concepts that spur playful
experimentation. While I do admire March’s suggestion of treating goals as hypotheses, I have some
reservations about fully embracing this attitude. On one hand, I like the flexibility that this paradigm
offers, because too often have I have committed to a goal without fully evaluating my aspiration, setting
myself up for frustration later on. Becoming too fixated on a goal is risky because not meeting that goal
can feel like failure and thus be demoralizing. If one views goals as hypotheses, than one can decide to
no longer pursue a goal, i.e. to find the hypothesis false, without losing face.
However, goals can serve an important function in that they can be a guidepost when resistance is
encountered. For example, if one came to the decision to write a novel or train for a marathon, the path
towards achieving that goal will not always smooth. Rather, there will mostly likely be many pitfalls along
the way. I feel that solely treating goals as hypothesis is as risky as making them an "iron cage" because
one might give up too easily.
I agree with Dr. Scotch and March that goals can arise from activities. For example, if one were very out
of shape, one might have the experience of not being able to participate in a group hike due to fatigue.
From the negative experience of this activity, a positive goal could emerge of gradually improving one’s
fitness to the point of eventually completing a marathon. During the course of one’s training towards
achieving this goal, one could experience a variety of frustrations, such as injuries, time constraints, bad
weather, illness, etc. If one views goals purely as hypothesis, then in the face of such adversity it might
easy to give up on the goal. However, oftentimes things well worth doing will not be easy, and pushing
onward despite frustrations is necessary to being an accomplished individual.
I would move towards viewing goals as theories rather than mere hypotheses. One definition of theory is
“a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation.” I feel that a
“theory” has a stronger connotation than “hypothesis,” thus suggesting that it shouldn’t necessarily be
quickly rejected, while at the same time (considering the definition above) preserves the flexibility of a
hypothesis, allowing it to be abandoned or rejected with personal dignity if the case for doing so is strong
enough.
-
By: Tyler Hughes
I don't quite see what point the other is trying to make. He is making an assumption that society is too
rigid with the current goals, but he fails to give credit to the organizations and people in society who are
constantly breaking that structure. Entrepreneurship is a very large part of businesses, and with the
technology available, some of those ideas turn millions of dollars in profit in just a few short years. There
are also several people who work to better their own conditions or the conditions of those around them
and make a great impact through their work.
The author also says several times that by breaking from the idea of "pre-existing goals" one can develop
more "interesting goals". Well, interesting according to whom? The notion of something being interesting
is completely subjective, and trying to place an objective theory on all decision making ideas and
processes seems to be foolish.
I'll give credit to the author for the example he gives when one is unsure of what the desired goals are,
saying that if the goals are the matter of the question, then one should "play" to determine what goals
are desired, but that, by no means, is an intuitive thought
-
By: Amber Khan
I found this article to be interesting as well as complicated and there are some things that I
could not necessarily relate to. When it comes to the author talking about goals I do tend to
agree that as adults we do set goals, and maturity results in our goals correlating with our
actions. However, relating to the previous article I have set important goals in my life that
don't necessarily correlate with my current actions.
For example, I am interested in more than one area of study and in the future I would like to
have a profession that is in the literary field. However, I am also very interested in
neuroscience and am currently pre med and my classes are focused on getting into medical
school. Thus, the actions I am taking to pursue my goals are mostly scientific although my
literary goal is just as important to me. Another thing I found interesting is the way the
author described intelligence and how intelligent people set up their lives and goals. This
made me question, how we as a society define intelligence. If a person is naturally bright but
they do not act on their skills (so their goals do not correlate with their actions) does this
make them less intelligent? What if a person has a subject that comes naturally easy to them
but spends all of their time focusing on something else, then how does that fit into societal
standards and systems of organization? For me, this article brought about more questions
then it did answers.
-
By: Maria Skobeleva
Despite initially having strong reservations regarding some of March's arguments, he
addressed these concerns in the latter half of the article, and I largely agree with his
perspective that experience can often be used as a means of deriving goals rather than the
opposite, using goals to derive experiences. Certainly, it would be nice if the education
system allowed for more exploration to determine goals rather than designating degree plans
and course tracts at the outset.
With respect to the beginning of the article, I was uncomfortable with how critical March is of
purpose, consistency, and rationality, and I was also uncomfortable with the dangers of
imitation and coercion, two activities March advocates for goal-finding. However, he
ultimately reconciles what he initially presents as opposing views by prescribing either (1) a
mix of reason and foolishness in decision-making or (2) oscillation between foolish actions
and reasonable actions. I like this idea of balance.
March is critical of recent initiatives that allow children to decide what they want for
themselves and advocates the traditional practice of encouraging growth and "forcing"
children to explore new ideas. In the margin to this paragraph, I wrote, "But I like the idea of
children finding their own paths, perhaps there is a balance to be had?" March suggests
exactly this later in the article when he reconciles reason with foolishness.
Although March admits there are "dangerous applications" of his procedure for playfulness,
he chooses not to address them, citing behavioral pathology as a more suitable field for such
considerations. However, I think it is important to address the dangers. So I'll do it myself
here.
In junior high, I was in a gifted and talented class with a very unregulated structure in which
each student was required to complete an independent study. Furthermore, we were told to
perform a great deal of preliminary research to allow this experience to guide our topic
selection (thus, an illustration of experience directing goals, as March advocates). March
would have referred to my class as an entirely playful environment. However, the
consequence of such an environment that lacked the deadlines, rules, and restrictions of a
"rational" environment were that several students never completed projects and completed
unsatisfactory projects at the very last minute. Ideally, my class would have implemented at
least a minimum of restrictions while still remaining flexible, just as March argues for a
technology of foolishness tempered by a technology of reason.
-
By: James Bowen
No offense to Dr. March, but for the first five pages of this essay he could have used a page
out of the book of my high school junior year English teacher: "When writing, give the
abstract concepts concrete examples." March seemed to have many strong opinions, but
didn't offer many examples or hypothetical situations that would support his statements.
I did, however, like his discussion on goals, actions and playfulness. Many times in life, we
don't know what we enjoy until we actually take action and try different things. (Picking a
major in college by exploring different classes comes to mind.) From these actions, we can
construct internal goals and values, but the question I have is to what extent should these
constructions be individually made rather than societally shaped. If we allow these
constructions to be made strictly by the individual, then, like Mehwish said, 9-year old kids
may decide that their goals are to smoke as many cigarettes as possible because they believe
that it will make them well-respected in their group of friends. Likewise, if Ben Franklin's
mother had told him that going out into lightning storms was dangerous and he should never
do it, then who knows whether old Benjamin would have made such an important discovery
for the world.
With regard to playfulness-and several people have already touched on this-I believe that
optimal performance in anything (playing sports, drawing pictures, learning in school) comes
from a precise balance of intense serious-mindedness and relaxed playfulness. In order to
maximize learning in the classroom, students must have that perfect concoction of intensity
and relaxation. They must be focused enough on the presented material, but comfortable
enough to think and talk at times in more jokingly abstract ways. Humor and playfulness can
expand the "iron cage", which in turn may open up the potential for new goals and actions to
be taken in life. Ultimately, squashing people's playfulness is depriving them of reaching an
optimal blend that results in maximum performance in whatever it is they're doing.
-
By: Jordan Price
I strongly agree with March's claim that we need to treat our goals as hypothesis.
There are numerous studies which highlight the differences between work that is done for
intrinsic reasons (enjoyment, fulfillment), and work that is done for extrinsic reasons
(monetary gain, responsibility). These papers consistently show that work done from intrinsic
motivations is of a higher quality and was rated more enjoyable to perform.
Society often has preexisting goals that we are expected to obtain. As citizens we are
expected to uphold a certain level of productivity. My family set preexisting goals for me, it
was assumed I would be going to college. Sixteen year old Whitney set very high goals for
me as well.
The general theories of choice conclude that "thinking should preceded action, that action
should serve a purpose; that purpose should be defined in terms of a consistent set of
preexisting goals." This model of choices leaves very little room for us to take actions for the
"playfulness" of them, just because such actions spark our interest.
I believe a better model is one that is suited around intrinsic motivations. Instead of allowing
others (and past selves) to dictate our actions, we should follow our curiosity towards goals
that interest us. If we deem our goals as "hypothesis" we give ourselves more wiggle room in
the actions we take. All the while reevaluating our progress, making sure that our interest
and true desires match the course we are currently following. Our past aspirations can vary
greatly from our current ones, and it isn't wise to follow a dream just because it's been your
dream for years.
Once we no longer have strict guidelines to a set goal, we can have more time to play and
enjoy our interest. Our goals should not be a concrete path paved in stone, but a general
starting point towards some direction with the possibility of detouring onto a new path with
new aspirations.
-
By: Whitney
“And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you. Stay hungry. Stay foolish." In
2005, Steve Jobs left Stanford’s graduates with this invocation of Stewart Brand as he signed-
off his Whole Earth Catalog in 1968.
“The Technology of Foolishness” reads as if imbued with the same spirit that spawned
innovative icons like Apple. I thought it interesting to frame an analysis with it too.
Apple’s example is one that I think captures much of what March is trying to pitch to
organizations seeking to improve their creative capacities. Staying hungry, to March, is the
means to stay foolish. That is, challenging your beliefs will enable you to work removed from
the your perceived limitations. Steve Jobs is quick to repeat how dropping out of college
allowed him to drop in on interesting experiences that later informed new ideas for Apple
products. This also emboldened him to continue meandering and adapting to the different
contexts in which he found himself over his career.
While March devotes a lot of his article conceptualizing the type of work Jobs and others have
been able to do, his discussion seems to converge on the familiar notion that the big jumps
take place where individuals strike across boundaries and work at intersections.
-
By: Sameer Sant
I think that while "playfulness" is not to be discounted, it is not to be striven for either. I
understand where March is coming from, but I think that some people's personality (like
mine) don't agree with that sort of thing. I couldn't allow myself to treat my goals as a
hypothesis. I like to go in with a definite goal and follow that. I agree that society has
preexisting goals that we are expected to obtain. And that as citizens we are expected to
uphold a certain level of productivity. But I don't feel like it's an issue. By having goals set, it
allows people to reach their full potential.
-
By: Diana Kirov
I enjoyed this article very much, and really didn't know where to start with a comment-March inundated this article with interesting statements. After skimming over the blog,
though, I've decided to address an issue that seems to have been mostly skimmed over: the
relationship between logic and value judgments.
I'd like to take the statement: "By rationality I mean a procedure for deciding what is correct
behavior by relating consequences systematically to objectives. By placing primary emphasis
on rational techniques, we implicitly have rejected...the processes of tradition and faith,
through which people do things because that is the way they are done."
I'm not going to address intuition. My question is why does he assume that there is not
thought behind tradition and faith? There is always a reason for a choice. It may be based on
fallacy, it may be simply be whimsy, but there is a reason. We choose. Rationality is based on
relating consequences to actions and acting accordingly to the objective. This process
requires presumptions; postulates; just like it previously in the article already stated “We find
it natural to base an interpretation…”
In the case of tradition, the assumption may be that what is tried is best; in that case
rationality takes this value judgment and chooses the course that hews most closely to
tradition. I am not saying that this postulate is right. The case of faith I find to be a bit more
interesting, as faith is all about values. Further in the article it speaks of values as more
fungible, and I believe this empowers my claim that faith would not be a replacement of
rationality in the terms defined, but rather the Where to rationality's How. I agree with the
statement that faith is "viewed as antithetical to [rationality]" but I won't agree that it
actually is.
-
By: Mikaela McMurtry