Scientific thinking has undergone an evolution in the Internet
age. Science commonly rationalizes outcomes based on
each effect has a cause.
There are rules and boundaries and limits and established facts.
That may be for the physical world. Does that also survive for
humans, for teams, for what we like and what we may choose and
Scientific work can offer results, interpretations and predictions.
about the dramatic evolution we see in our imperfect, more
In a scientific world where we work with teams, customers and
suppliers, it is a challenge to deal with the concept of human tastes.
They can be quite different than habit and cause-effect processing.
We can also think of our own “tastes” in light of some things
Vanderbilt wrote that
- our preferences most often depend on things we like in frameworks of
- tastes seem to depend on situations, circumstances and locations
- we choose and change choices and call upon a story for an explanation
[not the other way around]
- taste is comparative and adaptive
The Internet has brought about an explosion of the use, expression and
growth of our tastes, A/B testing, and recommendations. We see this
from Facebook, to texting photos, to Netflix as everyone can have and
express opinions which may or may not affect our thoughts. We live
in a world of limitless choices so it behooves us to consider
1. shortcuts come at a price in what we think we like
2. choices of words and meanings can bias thinking and feeling
3. express why you like your choice/preference and it helps to consider
developing categories as our brain is a pattern matching processor
4. it is easy to fall into the trap of ‘easy likes’ especially if we morph
what we see into something we think we see because we like.
5. related to this is we like what we remember even if it is not true
Leave a Reply