Over the years of technology analysis, design, and development efforts that I've been apart of, I've noticed a common thread: "I think, therefore I can". Sounds strange and simple, or just strangely simple, depending on your bent. But we can all relate, which I'll hopefully demonstrate here along with my solution that doesn't even require a scalpel. We have all heard, or said, one time or another, in our heads, or out-loud, verbatim or likewise, why isn't commonsense more common. What is scary, a realization that I believe that I've come to, is that there is a direct inverse scale of the critical-nature of the need for commonsense against the presense of commonsense. In other words, if I smitty'ed that accurately, the more critical a situation for the need of commonsense, the less likely commonsense is to be prevalent amongst the actors, within that scenario's anticipated critical source, of that same said commonsense.
That translates into a thought-entertained that possibly commonsense does poorly under pressure, no? Maybe. But what do I notice is that commonsense is, at least, assumed to a greater extent, of those put under pressure, in such situations.
I've found that the analyzing and recognizing of my own SWOT to decision-making, -baking, and -taking has allowed me to effectively run my "all of the above" through a mental-mapping-process that reveals my best-chance for a positive evaluation of "what makes sense". That is what makes me capable of very complex thought-maps of projects, visions, opinions, and/or concepts from various perspectives against one-to-many linear points of variance.
So, the fact that I say this process exists is fun. But over the years, I've been working in many situations where, what I have assumed was, logic did not prevail. In retrospective analysis, against the full gamut of blame, I learned, long ago, that the explanation of an idea is actually more important than the value of the idea, whenever the communication of the idea is required for the breath-of-life to be granted to the idea. Thus, since the stakeholders, influencers, and/or support-structures of that breath-of life are both numerous and of varied perspectives in each situation, as all can imagine, the explanation of an idea is not a singular faceted proposition. One, for to be successful in all the various iterations and variations and incantations of participants' perceptions, must develop a structured mental capacity for the origination, organization, and presentation of complex ideas.
In my head, that structure seems to have existed prior to my understanding of its need, as well as my comprehension of its depths. It has taken many trees and I/O to have my brain and my understanding arrive at the same place, at the same time. Synonymous to the value of breath existing way before the understanding of its need or its power to change the world in a word.
However, just like the power of the word, the need and power of intelligence design must be matured greatly, and against many perspectives, prior to wielding. Moreover, possibly most importantly, the cornerstone of its value is humility; the language of success has dialects and evolutions, and we can never "know it all", we can only simply know there is always more to know than our own "all".
I am not only here to just succeed, I am here to be success. What follows in this section is the synopsis of my upcoming book: Intelligence Design: The Language of Success.
