Conversation

Some of the most interesting system design work I've seen in quite some time. Values, contexts, ways of being, and feelings as primitives of the environment—seems very generative.

Quote Tweet

Joe Edelman

@edelwax

· Mar 5, 2021

Many (@fortelabs, @Conaw, @andy_matuschak) think we need a 𝙨𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙 𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣. In this research demo, I ask: What if we had a 𝙨𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙩, instead? loom.com/share/3fa7e57e

Andy Matuschak

@andy_matuschak

Mar 5, 2021

(I understand the contrast Joe's trying to draw b/w "second brain" & "second heart" but FWIW I don't really identify w "second brain" or even "extended cognition" as an aspiration b/c of exactly what he's alluding to—"tools for thought" designers tend to underestimate feeling!)

Andy Matuschak

@andy_matuschak

Mar 5, 2021

Likewise “tools for thought”… I’ve been trying the alternative “enabling environment” on for a while, which has some nice properties, but it’s less evocative.

Olli Tiainen

@olliten

Mar 5, 2021

Agree. Thoughts don’t use tools. But not sure if the environment enables either. You and the environment together form a new whole that produces the result. But how do you call that?

Olli Tiainen

@olliten

Mar 5, 2021

Often, when I chat with some of the smartest friends I have, I have smarter thoughts too. But who did the thinking, there? Were they a tool for my thinking? Or an enabling environment? Or something else? There must be a term that better describes this experience?

Replying to

and

This was the central claim of Vygostky’s social cognition theory, c.f. “Minds in Society.” Broadly speaking, I tend to think of thinking/actions as a product of people and their environments.

7:43 PM · Mar 5, 2021TweetDeck

Replying to

Interesting. I’ll check that out. And yes, I know you do. Just wondering, if there’s a term for the phenomena that could help us think better thoughts about the phenomena.