Serious question here, do you think it is because they don't know what worked or because they don't know
why it worked (or something else)? I am asking, because I have a gut feeling that institutions that expect to win treat things that "worked" (regardless of who did them) as a reflection on their own ideologies / doctrine - a reinforcement of its correctness if you will - while things that
don't work, are either used to reinforce why
they don't do it that way, or why
they need to adapt. Afterall, if something that has worked before doesn't anymore, it must be "new", right?
Bookmarks