@context_ing strongly recommends Liberman’s _More Studies in Ethnomethodology_ as an accessible introduction. My recollection is that it's weak on theory, so maybe it's good if you learn best bottom-up (from examples to theory).
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
The chapter on boardgames might be the most compelling one for you specifically.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
I'm going to try to reply on-site to the questions about "pushing stability out" and also numerical computation. The difficulty is in writing something less than BCS's book.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
As you observed, the book is one big lump, but the worldview is also one big lump. It's densely internally connected, and each part makes sense in dependence on all the other parts.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
And since each part individually contracts the whole of the analytic/cognitivist view, each part is incomprehensible or seems obviously wrong taken on its own.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
That's why there's this "cognitive flip" phenomenon, where you finally see enough of the interconnections between the pieces that the coherence of the whole thing suddenly comes into focus and you can see the world with it, and you are like OOOOOHHHH I GET IT
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
Maybe we need an ethnomethodology of this... As the book describes in excruciating detail the finer points of board game play, he remarks "Gee, I played board games before" as he proceeds to skim the rest of the section. But how does he know what sections are important?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
On a more serious note, I can read these things if I put myself into a GOFAI mindset; then they seem very sensible critiques. But as someone who was never inducted into the GOFAI hype, it is very difficult to find anything to take away from it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @the_aiju @drossbucket
Well I’m not as much of a fan of that book as Ryan is. But may it helps to understand that this is a direct empirical test of specific claims (about games and rules) by Wittgenstein in PI. PI was one of the first attempts to lay out exactly what’s wrong with cognitivism.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If you already accept that cognitivism is wrong, there’s still two more steps: what is a better descriptive account, and how can we leverage that to do technical rationality better.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Ethno can be seen as working out PI’s descriptive account (which is super handwavey). Then I’m trying to leverage that.
-
-
If I were an academic theorist, I could just take the ethno story as given and say “now here’s how meta-rationality works.” But then about seven people in the world could understand that, none of whom are technical professionals, so it would be pointless.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Instead I have to explain how rationality doesn’t work like rationalists think, and then how it does work. And who knows if I’ll ever get time to finish that!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.