The grasping of abstractions for one
-
-
Replying to @brazen_cabeza @Meaningness and
What abstractions do most people need to grasp on a deep level?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @simpolism @Meaningness and
Any map/territory contradistinction with real consequences really, and not necessarily strictly in the domain of pure sciences.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @brazen_cabeza @Meaningness and
I would prefer a single concrete example.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @simpolism @Meaningness and
Popular delusions in some quarters about the efficacy of the trickle-down hypothesis for its stated purpose.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @brazen_cabeza @Meaningness and
There seem to be few concrete results for an individual in the general population that result from belief or disbelief in trickle-down. The individual doesn't directly benefit from the knowledge, but instead benefits by proxy from a changing zeitgeist. I wouldn't call it "real."
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @simpolism @Meaningness and
If the perception drives policy it produces real consequences for real people. The results are felt at all levels of systems and can hardly be said not to be concrete.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @brazen_cabeza @Meaningness and
And yet the trickle-down zeitgeist took hold during the 80s, when systematicity was found at a *higher* level than now. Why did it fail?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @simpolism @brazen_cabeza and
This is a bit of an asshole move, sorry. I just wanted an example of an area where a single individual directly and immediately benefits in day-to-day life from being capable of systematic thinking.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @simpolism @brazen_cabeza and
I strongly agree that systematic thought will produce better citizens, fwiw. But I fear regulatory capture, gerrymandering, media issues, etc. would render the gains from systematicity irrelevant.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Well you just listed examples of how bad actors use systematic thinking to game the political system. If more of the public understood what was going on systematically rather than intuitively they might vote different.
-
-
Replying to @danlistensto @simpolism and
Intuition is very badly scrambled by tribalism and mood affiliation. Leads to voting for corrupt assholes who signal the right tribal shibboleths and speak to the mood of the crowd, usually fear.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @simpolism and
Voting systematically would mean understanding which issues are relevant to your life and which policies aid you with acceptable tradeoffs. Mostly people don't vote this way though.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
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.