On the dodo bird verdict, I’m reminded of this old comic about what airplanes would look like if different engineering specialties got their way.
If you remove the powerplant, it won’t fly. If it fails under stress, it won’t fly. Too heavy, won’t fly. Etc. If you take any working airplane, the powerplant guy will be able to say “see, it uses a powerplant and that’s why it works”, and he will have a point. They all will. The pieces need to all be there or it won’t work.
Similarly, if you ask “please pass the milk”, a hypnotist will tell you that “pass the milk” is an embedded command embedded in “can you please”, which is why it works. The NVC guy will point out that the “please” makes it a request not a threat of violence. The rapport focused guy will correctly point out that if they’re cold and hostile to you they’re likely to refuse. The hygiene guy will note that if you stink too much no one will show up to eat with you in the first place.
You can compensate for a little extra weight with a little extra powerplant, but if you forget the wings entirely you’re SOL. Often what matters most isn’t which part of the airplane the engineer talks about as “the way planes fly” but whether they pay enough attention to the rest that there aren’t any gaping holes. You can let the powerplant guy design the airplane and it’ll actually work, because he will still include wings.
When it comes to the question of whether therapeutic framework matters, it matters whether we’re in a context where we need the absolute best in one specific area, or whether we just need someone who remembers the wing even though that’s not his specialty. In the latter cases you’re going to get the dodo bird verdict because we’re measuring the effects of holes not specialties and holes probably don’t correlate much with specialty. If you’re working on a human powered airplane, you better hire the weight guy.
On the dodo bird verdict, I’m reminded of this old comic about what airplanes would look like if different engineering specialties got their way.
If you remove the powerplant, it won’t fly. If it fails under stress, it won’t fly. Too heavy, won’t fly. Etc. If you take any working airplane, the powerplant guy will be able to say “see, it uses a powerplant and that’s why it works”, and he will have a point. They all will. The pieces need to all be there or it won’t work.
Similarly, if you ask “please pass the milk”, a hypnotist will tell you that “pass the milk” is an embedded command embedded in “can you please”, which is why it works. The NVC guy will point out that the “please” makes it a request not a threat of violence. The rapport focused guy will correctly point out that if they’re cold and hostile to you they’re likely to refuse. The hygiene guy will note that if you stink too much no one will show up to eat with you in the first place.
You can compensate for a little extra weight with a little extra powerplant, but if you forget the wings entirely you’re SOL. Often what matters most isn’t which part of the airplane the engineer talks about as “the way planes fly” but whether they pay enough attention to the rest that there aren’t any gaping holes. You can let the powerplant guy design the airplane and it’ll actually work, because he will still include wings.
When it comes to the question of whether therapeutic framework matters, it matters whether we’re in a context where we need the absolute best in one specific area, or whether we just need someone who remembers the wing even though that’s not his specialty. In the latter cases you’re going to get the dodo bird verdict because we’re measuring the effects of holes not specialties and holes probably don’t correlate much with specialty. If you’re working on a human powered airplane, you better hire the weight guy.