Systematic thinking went out of fashion as a badge of membership in the cognitive elite, back in the 1980s, partly because it’s rigid and brittle.
I can't find a reason to disagree with that but I also can't reconcile that with examples from our (quite recent) past, such as lobotomy being fashionable 40s-50s, or your own pet peeve example nutrition "science"https://meaningness.com/nutrition
-
-
My question, I suppose, is "what about these dis-integral ideas makes them fashionable and how can we use it for actually good ideas?"
-
Excellent question! Studying intellectual history, to get a sense of why ideas catch on, should help (although it’s not sufficient by itself)
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.
Pomo replaced systematic cognition as the badge of high academic achievement, because—done well—it’s more difficult, and it evades the foundational crisis in rationality.
Disastrously, though, it’s useless for problem-solving; its only value is personal advertisement.
Let’s make fluid, meta-systematic thinking the new fashionable IQ signaling device! It's even more difficult than pomo, AND it accurately addresses practical problems!