Most (intellectualized) disagreements are one person thinking, "this other person doesn't have my particular and critical background knowledge, experience, and methodology, therefore they are ignorable," with the other person thinking the exact same fucking thing.
-
Show this thread
-
The really frustrating part? Knowledge is surprisingly portable and robust when the metric is instrumental sufficiency... ...and, the metric is almost always instrumental sufficiency...
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
...so they're both often right "enough" for positive experiential reinforcement... ...and, since their expertise doesn't align perfectly, they're wrong in non-overlapping ways that their counterpart identifies and interprets as evidence of inferiority.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
How do you escape this conundrum? You -- individually -- cannot. You'll never see the whole picture. It is, literally, beyond you and everyone else. Don't believe me? Try visualizing 10 dimensions in your mind's eye.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 Retweeted 💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫
Knowledge discovery is a social process. *We* sees further and deeper. In isolation, you'll just follow the ruts your brain affords you in service of generating soothing regularity... ...an infinite loop of insubstantial elaborations.https://twitter.com/generativist/status/1076465009750884353 …
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 added,
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.