How should we evaluate tools for thought? There's no simple metric, as far as I can tell. The best tools change your paradigm anyway, so your old metrics (books printed per year?) aren't what matter. Here's one (vague, but focusing): how much meaning is unlocked on the margin?
-
Show this thread
-
That is, you can talk about Mathematica's value by asking how many students use it, or if it helps their test scores, or by timing people solving problems using different tools. But its most significant value is in producing marginal profound mathematical insights.
1 reply 0 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
It's all a variant of Kay's "Sistine chapels per generation," I guess! But the marginal meaning doesn't have to be a grand edifice: Twitter's most powerful metric as a tool for thought is in creating transformative (off-platform) personal connections.
3 replies 3 retweets 32 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @andy_matuschak
I'm not familiar with Kay's "Sistine chapels per generation". Google isn't helping. Is this a meaningness metric?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Curious about this too (especially since I’ve been studying the Sistine Chapel for the past six years).
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
It’s from this remarkable paper: http://www.vpri.org/pdf/hc_pers_comp_for_children.pdf …
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.