What's interesting to me about the Cynefin framework is that, while these are all loop statements, sense is prioritized on the right half and not the left. What's weird is that sense (i.e. sensory information gathering) is simultaneously both the most useful heuristic and the most goal-destructive one if the sensory data and/or collection methods are somehow corrupted. "Something just smells wrong about this" could be intuition functioning as it should, or it could be that you've been inundated by so many complex lies that you're doing your own wee p analysis without even knowing it.
I think that's why "common sense" gets remediated as secondary axioms, stories, parables, etc. If something seems "obvious", we have a long-established record of other obvious, just-so, self-evident truths to fall back on for meta-analysis. Trying to start from scratch procedurally with every novel problem might perform well in the lab, but not the wild.
What's interesting to me about the Cynefin framework is that, while these are all loop statements, sense is prioritized on the right half and not the left. What's weird is that sense (i.e. sensory information gathering) is simultaneously both the most useful heuristic and the most goal-destructive one if the sensory data and/or collection methods are somehow corrupted. "Something just smells wrong about this" could be intuition functioning as it should, or it could be that you've been inundated by so many complex lies that you're doing your own wee p analysis without even knowing it.
I think that's why "common sense" gets remediated as secondary axioms, stories, parables, etc. If something seems "obvious", we have a long-established record of other obvious, just-so, self-evident truths to fall back on for meta-analysis. Trying to start from scratch procedurally with every novel problem might perform well in the lab, but not the wild.