But I find it interesting that the rather obvious assumption is that defending the status quo is wrong--something that deserves a warning. Often the existing state of affairs is a desirable state--that's why it is the status quo.
So I did a little Zen thing where you contradict your assumptions to shake yourself up a bit. Here are some of Seth's warning signs in their original (in italics) and then in their contrary form.
When confronted with a new idea do you:
- Consider the cost of switching before you consider the benefits? Consider the fun of switching before you consider the costs?
- Highlight the pain to a few instead of the benefits for the many? Highlight the benefit to a few instead of the pain for the many?
- Exaggerate how good things are now in order to reduce your fear of change? Exaggerate how bad things are now in order to instigate a change?
- Undercut the credibility, authority or experience of people behind the change? Undercut the credibility, authority or experience of people who support the status quo?
- Grab onto the rare thing that could go wrong instead of amplifying the likely thing that will go right? Grab onto the rare thing that goes wrong with the status quo instead of amplifying the many things that go right?
- Focus on short-term costs instead of long-term benefits, because the short-term is more vivid for you? Focus on short-term benefits instead of long-term costs, because the short-term is more fun for you?
- Etc, etc. I'll let you do the rest if you want.