Important concept, and related to debate about the value of experts and expertise. As someone who has worked in various domains, including transportation, without formal training, I can see the value of a fresh perspective and avoiding unhelpful assumptions. At the same time, expertise should not be completely disregarded. Balance is good.
A mentor of mine told me, "There's a difference between 20 years of experience and 1 year of experience 20 times." He was talking about one particular person who was in charge of a department and it was so true. I think about it often. People get the expert label with years, with or without expertise.
I love this article. I am a City Planner who works on long range Comprehensive/Strategic Plans. My job is full of asking people these 'big questions'. It is sometimes shocking when my clients (public planners/economic development specialist, engineers, etc.) are so detail focused. They are concerned with getting things through approval processes so when I come in and ask "what is wrong with your process?" "why is your process designed this way?" it is almost impossible for them to remove themselves and see that things could be more streamlined and result in a better product.
People have been asking those questions for the past 60 years and the answers are various: “yes, we should change X” (and I places are doing it) or “no, we like it that way.”
Those questions are not new ones — and in fact many are good questions! — and go to the core of urban planning discourse for decades.
For example, why do we still build detached houses with setbacks?
Answers include:
- People like the autonomy.
- Detached is easier to finance and manage.
- Detached is easier to build and protect from fire.
- Humans are selfish and look to their own personal self-interest.
- We are changing zoning to allow small multiples (missing middle.)
-etc etc
I took the post to be NEW questions and to me they have been part of urban planning for decades. Perhaps they are still new and no longer discussed among planning professionals and students.
This is a fairly glib comment that I'm going to give a mismatched, very earnest answer to, because I think it's important.
I think "already asked and answered" misunderstands the nature of learning. The fact that a question has been answered before doesn’t make it irrelevant. “What is 5×3?” has been answered countless times, and so has “What’s the difference between a planet and a star?” But we teach them anew to new generations. Even the biggest questions (“How does gravity work?”) seemed settled once. Newton’s laws described it well for centuries, then relativity came along with a deeper explanation, and now we've got quantum theory, raising new puzzles.
The spirit of human enquiry is incompatible with the idea that “We already asked and answered that.” And I think this is what Andy is saying. Curiosity and constant revisiting of "known things" is how we move forward. We make discoveries and we get out of ruts because people keep their curiosity alive, keep probing, and refuse to treat the first answer as the final one.
I love this!! As someone late to the game (I was a journalist of other things before focusing on land use only 2, 3 years ago after becoming a planning commissioner) I see the enormous benefit of coming in with ignorance and a sense of curiosity. It can be really intimidating to ask officials why they do things the way they do them, and I do get some "let me tell you, little lady" responses, but it's a productive approach for me. I am going to steal from you the idea to start articles with "dumb" questions!
One of my favorite things to say around people like you is "If I was a journalist, one thing I'd want to know is ______." Sometimes it helps to have a hint at a dumb question. ;)
Important concept, and related to debate about the value of experts and expertise. As someone who has worked in various domains, including transportation, without formal training, I can see the value of a fresh perspective and avoiding unhelpful assumptions. At the same time, expertise should not be completely disregarded. Balance is good.
A mentor of mine told me, "There's a difference between 20 years of experience and 1 year of experience 20 times." He was talking about one particular person who was in charge of a department and it was so true. I think about it often. People get the expert label with years, with or without expertise.
I love this article. I am a City Planner who works on long range Comprehensive/Strategic Plans. My job is full of asking people these 'big questions'. It is sometimes shocking when my clients (public planners/economic development specialist, engineers, etc.) are so detail focused. They are concerned with getting things through approval processes so when I come in and ask "what is wrong with your process?" "why is your process designed this way?" it is almost impossible for them to remove themselves and see that things could be more streamlined and result in a better product.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" Orwell 1984
The way we've always done it is not engineering. It is complacency bordering negligence.
Every one of those questions has been asked and answered.
People have been asking those questions for the past 60 years and the answers are various: “yes, we should change X” (and I places are doing it) or “no, we like it that way.”
Those questions are not new ones — and in fact many are good questions! — and go to the core of urban planning discourse for decades.
For example, why do we still build detached houses with setbacks?
Answers include:
- People like the autonomy.
- Detached is easier to finance and manage.
- Detached is easier to build and protect from fire.
- Humans are selfish and look to their own personal self-interest.
- We are changing zoning to allow small multiples (missing middle.)
-etc etc
I took the post to be NEW questions and to me they have been part of urban planning for decades. Perhaps they are still new and no longer discussed among planning professionals and students.
This is a fairly glib comment that I'm going to give a mismatched, very earnest answer to, because I think it's important.
I think "already asked and answered" misunderstands the nature of learning. The fact that a question has been answered before doesn’t make it irrelevant. “What is 5×3?” has been answered countless times, and so has “What’s the difference between a planet and a star?” But we teach them anew to new generations. Even the biggest questions (“How does gravity work?”) seemed settled once. Newton’s laws described it well for centuries, then relativity came along with a deeper explanation, and now we've got quantum theory, raising new puzzles.
The spirit of human enquiry is incompatible with the idea that “We already asked and answered that.” And I think this is what Andy is saying. Curiosity and constant revisiting of "known things" is how we move forward. We make discoveries and we get out of ruts because people keep their curiosity alive, keep probing, and refuse to treat the first answer as the final one.
Since no one was listening the first time, ask or answer again.
I love this!! As someone late to the game (I was a journalist of other things before focusing on land use only 2, 3 years ago after becoming a planning commissioner) I see the enormous benefit of coming in with ignorance and a sense of curiosity. It can be really intimidating to ask officials why they do things the way they do them, and I do get some "let me tell you, little lady" responses, but it's a productive approach for me. I am going to steal from you the idea to start articles with "dumb" questions!
One of my favorite things to say around people like you is "If I was a journalist, one thing I'd want to know is ______." Sometimes it helps to have a hint at a dumb question. ;)
A wise person taught me that the only dumb question is the one that doesn't get asked.
In public meetings, no one is willing to ask the first question, so "Let's start with the second one".