<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The cognitive dissonance of experts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/</link>
	<description>How to start a clothing line or run the one you have, better.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:56:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: mc</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator>mc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Feb 2008 02:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/2005/02/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-21</guid>
		<description>I haven't read The Zen of Motorcycle Maintenance.  I have read The Fountainhead and The Prince...

how can I do something about it and be productive in spite of it?
Abandon expectations linked to a result/outcome; specifically the result that you seek.  You will always be antagonized if you adhere to your current end goal... beacuse you can't control the people.  With any radical or revolutionary idea, there exists a precedence of an acclimation period before it is accepted.  RE productivity, what is your benchmark?  What are you gauging?  Is it a measure of success you are actually referring to?  It might be easier if you view productiveness as an end in itself and not a means to an end.

How can one "get someone to listen"?
There is a way.  Make them love you.  They fear you (your ideas), and that hasn't worked out for you.  Seems like bs and a fluff protocol, but if they don't love your idea, they're going to have to love YOU so that they will accept your idea.

What strategies exist to lower people's defenses to new information?
It's called "product packaging" and "promotions".  The internal force requires interpersonal skills and the ability to "handle" (or "maneuver") people.  The external force requires getting to know a few Tooheys.  Get The Banner on your side.  This will accelerate the acclimation period.

RE expert questions... I'm not sure if the matter is rhetoric arising from frustration... ?  I have no answer that will sate the real issue.  There is not really a solution.  All I can say is that I have 100% faith in your ideas.  Screw the ones that ones that don't believe, they don't deserve your ideas.  I have a stronger competitive advantage thanks to them, and of course, thanks to you.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I haven&#8217;t read The Zen of Motorcycle Maintenance.  I have read The Fountainhead and The Prince&#8230;</p>
<p>how can I do something about it and be productive in spite of it?<br />
Abandon expectations linked to a result/outcome; specifically the result that you seek.  You will always be antagonized if you adhere to your current end goal&#8230; beacuse you can&#8217;t control the people.  With any radical or revolutionary idea, there exists a precedence of an acclimation period before it is accepted.  RE productivity, what is your benchmark?  What are you gauging?  Is it a measure of success you are actually referring to?  It might be easier if you view productiveness as an end in itself and not a means to an end.</p>
<p>How can one &#8220;get someone to listen&#8221;?<br />
There is a way.  Make them love you.  They fear you (your ideas), and that hasn&#8217;t worked out for you.  Seems like bs and a fluff protocol, but if they don&#8217;t love your idea, they&#8217;re going to have to love YOU so that they will accept your idea.</p>
<p>What strategies exist to lower people&#8217;s defenses to new information?<br />
It&#8217;s called &#8220;product packaging&#8221; and &#8220;promotions&#8221;.  The internal force requires interpersonal skills and the ability to &#8220;handle&#8221; (or &#8220;maneuver&#8221;) people.  The external force requires getting to know a few Tooheys.  Get The Banner on your side.  This will accelerate the acclimation period.</p>
<p>RE expert questions&#8230; I&#8217;m not sure if the matter is rhetoric arising from frustration&#8230; ?  I have no answer that will sate the real issue.  There is not really a solution.  All I can say is that I have 100% faith in your ideas.  Screw the ones that ones that don&#8217;t believe, they don&#8217;t deserve your ideas.  I have a stronger competitive advantage thanks to them, and of course, thanks to you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: La BellaDonna</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>La BellaDonna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:40:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/2005/02/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-20</guid>
		<description>Thank you for bringing this up.  As a craftswoman who is always interested in learning, it's frustrated me repeatedly that in the histories of, say, designers such as Dior, and in histories of costuming/costumers for the movies, such as Adrian, there has been virtually no information available on the patternmakers, cutters, fitters, and seamstresses - &lt;i&gt;the people who bring the designs to life.&lt;/i&gt;  Now, I can't draw really cool pictures, but I do create, and I'm interested in creating in ways that are more/better/different.  I want to know the TECHNICAL MEANS by which these garments, these creations, were brought to life.  I don't need to watch Yves St. Laurent looking at an assistant's design, saying, "Raise the hem a quarter inch;" I want to know how the shapes are born.  I want to know how the creators practice their craft.  I don't know if I'm expressing myself very well; while I appreciate the beauty of what a lot of designers produce/d (and am hemmed in by the books I collect on the subject), I want to know HOW that dress, how that jacket, came to life.  I want to know if I'm the only person who had to figure out how to invisibly bone a transparent garment that curved sharply in four directions over a brief span of inches.  I want to know other people's solutions.

I'm really glad I found your site, Kathleen.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for bringing this up.  As a craftswoman who is always interested in learning, it&#8217;s frustrated me repeatedly that in the histories of, say, designers such as Dior, and in histories of costuming/costumers for the movies, such as Adrian, there has been virtually no information available on the patternmakers, cutters, fitters, and seamstresses - <i>the people who bring the designs to life.</i>  Now, I can&#8217;t draw really cool pictures, but I do create, and I&#8217;m interested in creating in ways that are more/better/different.  I want to know the TECHNICAL MEANS by which these garments, these creations, were brought to life.  I don&#8217;t need to watch Yves St. Laurent looking at an assistant&#8217;s design, saying, &#8220;Raise the hem a quarter inch;&#8221; I want to know how the shapes are born.  I want to know how the creators practice their craft.  I don&#8217;t know if I&#8217;m expressing myself very well; while I appreciate the beauty of what a lot of designers produce/d (and am hemmed in by the books I collect on the subject), I want to know HOW that dress, how that jacket, came to life.  I want to know if I&#8217;m the only person who had to figure out how to invisibly bone a transparent garment that curved sharply in four directions over a brief span of inches.  I want to know other people&#8217;s solutions.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m really glad I found your site, Kathleen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Debbie Soles</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Debbie Soles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:42:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/2005/02/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-19</guid>
		<description>Gee isn't Kenneth the new editor at Threads??:))  I don't and wouldn't subscribe to this magazine, but have looked at a couple of the last issues, certainly has confirmed my reasons for never subscribing!
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gee isn&#8217;t Kenneth the new editor at Threads??:))  I don&#8217;t and wouldn&#8217;t subscribe to this magazine, but have looked at a couple of the last issues, certainly has confirmed my reasons for never subscribing!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kenneth</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:51:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/2005/02/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-18</guid>
		<description>Hello again!

I appreciate your comments and your point of view.  Perhaps it is a stretch that I think I know all of what I don't know-- I think it would be better put to say that I have a list, and it's a long one, and I'm sure there are things missing that I'm unaware of. I teach around here and there, and find out what I don't know, when asked questions by students.  If I don't know, I'll tell them when I don't know, or when I'm making an educated guess.

As for thinking that my work can't be manufactured in multiples, I believe it can.  My background is retail, not art, so I don't have that sort of baggage saying that manufacturing is bad or a sell-out,  or somehow dilutes my vision. I recently moved to New York to pursue the next phase of my journey, which is to be known for my particular vision. I understand that part of this is producing in multiples to gain a broader audience.  I have made what I call "limited edition" in the past which I've sold in boutiques like Maxfield in L.A., but it would still fall into the category of craft manufacturing.  One advantage of that, though, for me, was that I could charge a very high price point because of the scarcity of product.

Thanks for the kind words about my web site--I'm very proud of the work I do, and strive to make things that are different than what's on the market.  One idea that seems to have gone missing, and one that I aspire to, is making women look and feel lovely, and bringing pleasure to them in the form of beautiful things.

And yes, indeed, I am thinking about a retail line.  This is one of the parts of my business plan that I'm working on...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello again!</p>
<p>I appreciate your comments and your point of view.  Perhaps it is a stretch that I think I know all of what I don&#8217;t know&#8211; I think it would be better put to say that I have a list, and it&#8217;s a long one, and I&#8217;m sure there are things missing that I&#8217;m unaware of. I teach around here and there, and find out what I don&#8217;t know, when asked questions by students.  If I don&#8217;t know, I&#8217;ll tell them when I don&#8217;t know, or when I&#8217;m making an educated guess.</p>
<p>As for thinking that my work can&#8217;t be manufactured in multiples, I believe it can.  My background is retail, not art, so I don&#8217;t have that sort of baggage saying that manufacturing is bad or a sell-out,  or somehow dilutes my vision. I recently moved to New York to pursue the next phase of my journey, which is to be known for my particular vision. I understand that part of this is producing in multiples to gain a broader audience.  I have made what I call &#8220;limited edition&#8221; in the past which I&#8217;ve sold in boutiques like Maxfield in L.A., but it would still fall into the category of craft manufacturing.  One advantage of that, though, for me, was that I could charge a very high price point because of the scarcity of product.</p>
<p>Thanks for the kind words about my web site&#8211;I&#8217;m very proud of the work I do, and strive to make things that are different than what&#8217;s on the market.  One idea that seems to have gone missing, and one that I aspire to, is making women look and feel lovely, and bringing pleasure to them in the form of beautiful things.</p>
<p>And yes, indeed, I am thinking about a retail line.  This is one of the parts of my business plan that I&#8217;m working on&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kathleen</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-17</link>
		<dc:creator>kathleen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:21:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/2005/02/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-17</guid>
		<description>You say that you know what you don't know...then you've got a leg up on me! I find it difficult to itemize what it is that I don't know because if one doesn't know, how can one know what one does not know? Then, there's always the topics that one thinks they know but they don't know that they don't know. You're obviously wiser than me because I do not know all that I do not know -and I doubt I ever will- and I think that wisdom could be defined by knowing what one does not know. As Albert Einstein said, (paraphrased) the same thinking that created current problems is insufficient to solve them. Iow, you can't get there from here, not with today's tools anyway.

Regarding your claim  that you could be included in the category of designers such as Balenciaga who could cut and sew their own patterns: I think you've misinterpreted my comments because I'm speaking of designers who employ a different class of manufacturing -of which Balenciaga was one- rather than custom work. I don't write about custom or craft manufacturing and have never claimed to. While you may share some innovative ideas and similar highly specialized skills, you're not producing your designs in any quantity. The standards for reproducibility are more stringent -not less- than that of custom work.There are similar custom designers all over the country and while they may not be as skilled or talented as you, they also make their own patterns and do their own sewing and it is only appropriate that they should continue to do so. I'm not addressing one-offs. Btw, I don't mean to imply that custom designers in cities across America are on your same level anymore than you intended to imply that you were on the same level as French couturiers. The latter had economies of scale -albeit in some cases limited. You'd think their historical example would forever silence the common belief expressed by many a custom or craft-level designer that their design couldn't be produced in manufacturing but it doesn't seem to slow them down any.

I need to back up a bit: briefly, there are 3 classes of manufacturing. One is described as Craft Manufacturing, then Mass Production (with 2 subtypes, push and pull) and lastly is Lean Manufacturing. Craft manufacturing's  most striking feature is that it's difficult to gain economies of scale even when reproducing multiple units of one design. Iow, a craft manufacturer has roughly the same costs per unit whether they've made one item or ten. We all know that mass production has greater economies of scale but few know anything about Lean manufacturing or its economies of scale. Roughly, the latter is a happy marriage of both craft and mass production. Lean requires the artisanry of highly skilled labor -a continually learning workforce- that is typical of craft manufacturing along with the positive elements of mass manufacturing. Lean is a truly dramatic model in that one could technically be a craft manufacturer but still be able to realize the economies of scale seen in mass production. A designer like Balenciaga did produce multiple units and economies of scale and therefore was by technical definition, a mass manufacturer. When I'm talking about designers, I'm not talking about craft manufacturers but mass or lean manufacturers. The bar for reproducibility is set much higher than with craft so I reiterate my statement that I have only known one designer who was qualified to make her own production patterns. Perhaps you'd be the second but you'd have to produce in quantity before I'd know that. I don't write about craft manufacturing; it's not my area. Craft discussion is left to PACC, Threads, Sew News et al.

The debate among craft manufacturers like custom clothiers has always been a trade-off of quality vs quantity but this is no longer true if it ever was. I feel that craft manufacturers would do well to consider the concept of lean but you can't get them to Lean if they already know everything or think they know what they don't know or have errant beliefs about production. I've talked to a lot of craft designers and there's not one among them who doesn't think that their designs can't be manufactured but maybe you're different. That attitude is a form of arrogance if you think about it but their claims notwithstanding, I have yet to see a design they put out that could not be improved upon -while still retaining design integrity- and realizing greater economies of scale. Similarly, were they to attempt to implement Lean concepts, they would necessarily need to learn more precise reproducibility standards in their pattern work which they could easily learn but they'll never learn it if they don't know that they don't know. One production pattern making class would change &lt;strong&gt;everything&lt;/strong&gt; for them. Too bad nobody teaches it in schools.

Wow, I hear your frustration regarding Threads. It's pretty scary that a magazine that purportedly publishes unique technical information is itself structurally encumbered by publishing standards that effectively serve to limit or distort the very information they attempt to disseminate. These practices -imo- seem to contradict their public mission. However, the articles I'm talking about have structural deficits from the initial concept through execution; it's not a matter of a minute detail that's been compromised by omission or brevity. Rather it's the opposite. Most of the articles I'm talking about could be shorter and more succinct.

And I know what you mean by the "expert" label. I've had the same problem in the trade press having been described as a "master" pattern maker which I adamantly deny. I consider myself a steward, a caretaker and curator of pattern and sewing information.When I wrote for Apparel Industry, Andree Conrad was great about respecting my wishes. Bobbin -on the other hand- always had to jazz me up somehow. And, I love Kathleen De Marteau to death so if you're reading this Kathy, I know you know what I mean ;). Btw, Kathleen has a great sense of humor. I once described Bobbin (a requester and usually free publication) in less than glowing terms as "you get what you pay for". I critique everybody whether I write for them or not.

Your website shows extraordinary work. Ever think of developing a retail line ;)?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You say that you know what you don&#8217;t know&#8230;then you&#8217;ve got a leg up on me! I find it difficult to itemize what it is that I don&#8217;t know because if one doesn&#8217;t know, how can one know what one does not know? Then, there&#8217;s always the topics that one thinks they know but they don&#8217;t know that they don&#8217;t know. You&#8217;re obviously wiser than me because I do not know all that I do not know -and I doubt I ever will- and I think that wisdom could be defined by knowing what one does not know. As Albert Einstein said, (paraphrased) the same thinking that created current problems is insufficient to solve them. Iow, you can&#8217;t get there from here, not with today&#8217;s tools anyway.</p>
<p>Regarding your claim  that you could be included in the category of designers such as Balenciaga who could cut and sew their own patterns: I think you&#8217;ve misinterpreted my comments because I&#8217;m speaking of designers who employ a different class of manufacturing -of which Balenciaga was one- rather than custom work. I don&#8217;t write about custom or craft manufacturing and have never claimed to. While you may share some innovative ideas and similar highly specialized skills, you&#8217;re not producing your designs in any quantity. The standards for reproducibility are more stringent -not less- than that of custom work.There are similar custom designers all over the country and while they may not be as skilled or talented as you, they also make their own patterns and do their own sewing and it is only appropriate that they should continue to do so. I&#8217;m not addressing one-offs. Btw, I don&#8217;t mean to imply that custom designers in cities across America are on your same level anymore than you intended to imply that you were on the same level as French couturiers. The latter had economies of scale -albeit in some cases limited. You&#8217;d think their historical example would forever silence the common belief expressed by many a custom or craft-level designer that their design couldn&#8217;t be produced in manufacturing but it doesn&#8217;t seem to slow them down any.</p>
<p>I need to back up a bit: briefly, there are 3 classes of manufacturing. One is described as Craft Manufacturing, then Mass Production (with 2 subtypes, push and pull) and lastly is Lean Manufacturing. Craft manufacturing&#8217;s  most striking feature is that it&#8217;s difficult to gain economies of scale even when reproducing multiple units of one design. Iow, a craft manufacturer has roughly the same costs per unit whether they&#8217;ve made one item or ten. We all know that mass production has greater economies of scale but few know anything about Lean manufacturing or its economies of scale. Roughly, the latter is a happy marriage of both craft and mass production. Lean requires the artisanry of highly skilled labor -a continually learning workforce- that is typical of craft manufacturing along with the positive elements of mass manufacturing. Lean is a truly dramatic model in that one could technically be a craft manufacturer but still be able to realize the economies of scale seen in mass production. A designer like Balenciaga did produce multiple units and economies of scale and therefore was by technical definition, a mass manufacturer. When I&#8217;m talking about designers, I&#8217;m not talking about craft manufacturers but mass or lean manufacturers. The bar for reproducibility is set much higher than with craft so I reiterate my statement that I have only known one designer who was qualified to make her own production patterns. Perhaps you&#8217;d be the second but you&#8217;d have to produce in quantity before I&#8217;d know that. I don&#8217;t write about craft manufacturing; it&#8217;s not my area. Craft discussion is left to PACC, Threads, Sew News et al.</p>
<p>The debate among craft manufacturers like custom clothiers has always been a trade-off of quality vs quantity but this is no longer true if it ever was. I feel that craft manufacturers would do well to consider the concept of lean but you can&#8217;t get them to Lean if they already know everything or think they know what they don&#8217;t know or have errant beliefs about production. I&#8217;ve talked to a lot of craft designers and there&#8217;s not one among them who doesn&#8217;t think that their designs can&#8217;t be manufactured but maybe you&#8217;re different. That attitude is a form of arrogance if you think about it but their claims notwithstanding, I have yet to see a design they put out that could not be improved upon -while still retaining design integrity- and realizing greater economies of scale. Similarly, were they to attempt to implement Lean concepts, they would necessarily need to learn more precise reproducibility standards in their pattern work which they could easily learn but they&#8217;ll never learn it if they don&#8217;t know that they don&#8217;t know. One production pattern making class would change <strong>everything</strong> for them. Too bad nobody teaches it in schools.</p>
<p>Wow, I hear your frustration regarding Threads. It&#8217;s pretty scary that a magazine that purportedly publishes unique technical information is itself structurally encumbered by publishing standards that effectively serve to limit or distort the very information they attempt to disseminate. These practices -imo- seem to contradict their public mission. However, the articles I&#8217;m talking about have structural deficits from the initial concept through execution; it&#8217;s not a matter of a minute detail that&#8217;s been compromised by omission or brevity. Rather it&#8217;s the opposite. Most of the articles I&#8217;m talking about could be shorter and more succinct.</p>
<p>And I know what you mean by the &#8220;expert&#8221; label. I&#8217;ve had the same problem in the trade press having been described as a &#8220;master&#8221; pattern maker which I adamantly deny. I consider myself a steward, a caretaker and curator of pattern and sewing information.When I wrote for Apparel Industry, Andree Conrad was great about respecting my wishes. Bobbin -on the other hand- always had to jazz me up somehow. And, I love Kathleen De Marteau to death so if you&#8217;re reading this Kathy, I know you know what I mean ;). Btw, Kathleen has a great sense of humor. I once described Bobbin (a requester and usually free publication) in less than glowing terms as &#8220;you get what you pay for&#8221;. I critique everybody whether I write for them or not.</p>
<p>Your website shows extraordinary work. Ever think of developing a retail line ;)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kenneth</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:33:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/2005/02/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-16</guid>
		<description>Hello!
I read with interest your comments regarding experts (in particular those who write for Threads Magazine).  I am one of those authors, but don't declare myself an "expert". That's something that got stuck to me at some point.  When I speak about sewing I will honestly say that there are areas where I know something, and areas where I can make an educated guess, and areas where I'm out of my depth.

I know what I know, and know that I don't know everything--learning new things about my craft keeps me interested in what I do, which is one-off evening wear.  I design and produce it all myself, so you might count me as one of those designers who knows how to sew and draft patterns.  There is a certain vision I want to create, which is more process driven. The best and most efficient way for me to do it is to figure it out, and make it myself. (And no, I don't call my work "wearable art".)  If you are interested, please look at my web site--I'd be interested in hearing what you think.

I also feel the frustration about unclear or incorrect information that appears in the literature, and have called Threads on several occasions to comment on articles that were off the mark.  One barrier I have encountered when writing for them was the editorial process--they allocate a fixed number of pages for an article, so edit to that length.  In my experience, this editing can compromise the information in the service of editing.

The editors at these magazines are editors, who sew, not professionals such as yourself, who edit.  Their concern is producing a magazine, and their decisions are driven by the concerns of their publisher (who doesn't know a thing about sewing).  Sewing is just the subject matter.  That's my best guess as to how incorrect information has gotten into the literature....

This may be off-topic, but I haven't owned a TV since the late 1970's.  I will watch if I'm in a hotel, but for the most part I feel the lack of distraction it creates, has given me the time, and clear space, to find my own quirky vision of what I wish to create.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello!<br />
I read with interest your comments regarding experts (in particular those who write for Threads Magazine).  I am one of those authors, but don&#8217;t declare myself an &#8220;expert&#8221;. That&#8217;s something that got stuck to me at some point.  When I speak about sewing I will honestly say that there are areas where I know something, and areas where I can make an educated guess, and areas where I&#8217;m out of my depth.</p>
<p>I know what I know, and know that I don&#8217;t know everything&#8211;learning new things about my craft keeps me interested in what I do, which is one-off evening wear.  I design and produce it all myself, so you might count me as one of those designers who knows how to sew and draft patterns.  There is a certain vision I want to create, which is more process driven. The best and most efficient way for me to do it is to figure it out, and make it myself. (And no, I don&#8217;t call my work &#8220;wearable art&#8221;.)  If you are interested, please look at my web site&#8211;I&#8217;d be interested in hearing what you think.</p>
<p>I also feel the frustration about unclear or incorrect information that appears in the literature, and have called Threads on several occasions to comment on articles that were off the mark.  One barrier I have encountered when writing for them was the editorial process&#8211;they allocate a fixed number of pages for an article, so edit to that length.  In my experience, this editing can compromise the information in the service of editing.</p>
<p>The editors at these magazines are editors, who sew, not professionals such as yourself, who edit.  Their concern is producing a magazine, and their decisions are driven by the concerns of their publisher (who doesn&#8217;t know a thing about sewing).  Sewing is just the subject matter.  That&#8217;s my best guess as to how incorrect information has gotten into the literature&#8230;.</p>
<p>This may be off-topic, but I haven&#8217;t owned a TV since the late 1970&#8217;s.  I will watch if I&#8217;m in a hotel, but for the most part I feel the lack of distraction it creates, has given me the time, and clear space, to find my own quirky vision of what I wish to create.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kathleen</title>
		<link>http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-15</link>
		<dc:creator>kathleen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 May 2005 00:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fashion-incubator.com/2005/02/the_cognitive_dissonance_of_experts/#comment-15</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;This is a compilation and crude importation of all the comments posted at the original site for this  document&lt;/b&gt;. Feel free to add your comments.
------------------------------

2/16/2005 04:05:55 PM  &lt;a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/7053947l" rel="nofollow"&gt;Susan said:&lt;/a&gt;
From those psyche classes I took so many years ago, I remember cognitive dissonance as being even a little more twisted than you portray. The classic experiment was to pay student volunteers to do an extremely boring task. One group was paid a pittance; the other a decent amount. The poorly paid works "liked" the job more than the better paid ones; since they couldn't tell themselves they were doing it for the money they had to find some intrinsic value to the task.

So the fact that cogitive dissonance even arises in a given situation is in fact "proof" that you are getting though. Otherwise, there would be none. If a person is truely, unquestionably convinced that they are 100% solid correct, there is no need to make up arguments. It is only when that nagging doubt creeps in...


2/21/2005 02:21:02 PM  &lt;a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/3093354" rel="nofollow"&gt;Eric said:&lt;/a&gt;
I found this post difficult to grasp, mostly because your experience in your industry is so different from what I have come to expect in mine. In my industry (really, a collection of loosely related industries), "experts" only reveal themselves through accomplishment, not through heraldry. Anyone attempting to pass themselves off as an expert would quickly find themselves dismissed or - at the very least - quizzed to death. We expect to be questioned and to be able to either support our beliefs with hard evidence, or to change our beliefs when contrary evidence is presented. It is no loss of face if the team actually learns something in the process.

I think the hazy origins of the apparel industry may be the source of your difficulties. Surely, you know more about this than I, but it must have started in the home, then proceeded to fall in the domain of craftsmen (and women), and only lately (within the last 250 years) becoming an industrial operation. Even as an industry, there were surely techniques that were passed on through master/apprentice relationships, so the whole thing was kept very close to the vest either for competitive reasons or because of the internal culture. Contrast this with, say, automobile manufacture, where the manufacturing processes were very visibly turned over to engineers early in the industry's history.

The difference is that one has an ancient history in which the term "engineer" never formally entered the culture, whereas the other was quickly dominated by engineers. A pattern maker is a hybrid of engineer and draftsman. The engineering discipline requried is not really mechanical, it's more like a mix of Materials and Industrial Engineering. Pattern making can be every bit as high tech or high concept as automobile manufacture. However, between the closed nature of the industry, and the average person's belief that it can't be that complicated since we've seen Mom do it, I think most people believe that either there isn't much to it, or there are hidden secrets to the way big apparel manufacturers produce the results they do.

Therefore, the ancientness of the apparel industry lends itself to secrecy and mysticism, and therefore may be exploited by anyone claiming to have unlocked these secrets. If it's not in the open, anyone can lay claim to having the knowledge. Nobody in the industry is likely to come out from behind closed doors to dispute them, and nobody in the general public knows enough about it to dispute them.

Thomas Szasz has written extensively about the close parallels between drugs (both illegal and prescription) and religion. He points out that doctor/priests serve as the gatekeepers, both protecting you from "bad" drugs and guiding you to "good" ones. They tend to foster a culture of mysticism, using intentionally archaic terms, limiting their ranks by requiring entrants to come up through specific school/monasteries and hazing/internship rituals. As a result, few people believe that they are capable of understanding, much less participating in their own therapy or even their own long term health care. This seems to be pretty much the state of the home sewing industry, where a few annointed experts are able to position themselves as the role of gatekeepers to the secret knowledge of the manufacturers.

&lt;a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1556910193/103-2059176-5415859" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1556910193/103-2059176-5415859&lt;/a&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>This is a compilation and crude importation of all the comments posted at the original site for this  document</b>. Feel free to add your comments.<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;</p>
<p>2/16/2005 04:05:55 PM  <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/7053947l" rel="nofollow">Susan said:</a><br />
From those psyche classes I took so many years ago, I remember cognitive dissonance as being even a little more twisted than you portray. The classic experiment was to pay student volunteers to do an extremely boring task. One group was paid a pittance; the other a decent amount. The poorly paid works &#8220;liked&#8221; the job more than the better paid ones; since they couldn&#8217;t tell themselves they were doing it for the money they had to find some intrinsic value to the task.</p>
<p>So the fact that cogitive dissonance even arises in a given situation is in fact &#8220;proof&#8221; that you are getting though. Otherwise, there would be none. If a person is truely, unquestionably convinced that they are 100% solid correct, there is no need to make up arguments. It is only when that nagging doubt creeps in&#8230;</p>
<p>2/21/2005 02:21:02 PM  <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/3093354" rel="nofollow">Eric said:</a><br />
I found this post difficult to grasp, mostly because your experience in your industry is so different from what I have come to expect in mine. In my industry (really, a collection of loosely related industries), &#8220;experts&#8221; only reveal themselves through accomplishment, not through heraldry. Anyone attempting to pass themselves off as an expert would quickly find themselves dismissed or - at the very least - quizzed to death. We expect to be questioned and to be able to either support our beliefs with hard evidence, or to change our beliefs when contrary evidence is presented. It is no loss of face if the team actually learns something in the process.</p>
<p>I think the hazy origins of the apparel industry may be the source of your difficulties. Surely, you know more about this than I, but it must have started in the home, then proceeded to fall in the domain of craftsmen (and women), and only lately (within the last 250 years) becoming an industrial operation. Even as an industry, there were surely techniques that were passed on through master/apprentice relationships, so the whole thing was kept very close to the vest either for competitive reasons or because of the internal culture. Contrast this with, say, automobile manufacture, where the manufacturing processes were very visibly turned over to engineers early in the industry&#8217;s history.</p>
<p>The difference is that one has an ancient history in which the term &#8220;engineer&#8221; never formally entered the culture, whereas the other was quickly dominated by engineers. A pattern maker is a hybrid of engineer and draftsman. The engineering discipline requried is not really mechanical, it&#8217;s more like a mix of Materials and Industrial Engineering. Pattern making can be every bit as high tech or high concept as automobile manufacture. However, between the closed nature of the industry, and the average person&#8217;s belief that it can&#8217;t be that complicated since we&#8217;ve seen Mom do it, I think most people believe that either there isn&#8217;t much to it, or there are hidden secrets to the way big apparel manufacturers produce the results they do.</p>
<p>Therefore, the ancientness of the apparel industry lends itself to secrecy and mysticism, and therefore may be exploited by anyone claiming to have unlocked these secrets. If it&#8217;s not in the open, anyone can lay claim to having the knowledge. Nobody in the industry is likely to come out from behind closed doors to dispute them, and nobody in the general public knows enough about it to dispute them.</p>
<p>Thomas Szasz has written extensively about the close parallels between drugs (both illegal and prescription) and religion. He points out that doctor/priests serve as the gatekeepers, both protecting you from &#8220;bad&#8221; drugs and guiding you to &#8220;good&#8221; ones. They tend to foster a culture of mysticism, using intentionally archaic terms, limiting their ranks by requiring entrants to come up through specific school/monasteries and hazing/internship rituals. As a result, few people believe that they are capable of understanding, much less participating in their own therapy or even their own long term health care. This seems to be pretty much the state of the home sewing industry, where a few annointed experts are able to position themselves as the role of gatekeepers to the secret knowledge of the manufacturers.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1556910193/103-2059176-5415859" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1556910193/103-2059176-5415859</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
