Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.

This is the legacy version of twitter.com. We will be shutting it down on June 1, 2020. Please switch to a supported browser, or disable the extension which masks your browser. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
vgr's profile
Venkatesh Rao
Venkatesh Rao
Venkatesh Rao
@vgr

Tweets

Venkatesh Rao

@vgr

This is my conversational account. For my work follow @ribbonfarm, @breaking_smart, @artofgig. Tweets are 90% vacuous views, apathetically held. Mediocritopian.

Los Angeles, CA
venkateshrao.com
Joined August 2007

Tweets

  • © 2020 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Imprint
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      A thread about mysteries. A mystery is a clear pattern that points *dramatically* to the existence of an unexplained coherent phenomenon, preventing you from ignoring it, but without immediately elucidating it by *also* pointing to some obvious possible explanations.

      1 reply 3 retweets 18 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      A minimum level of drama is necessary otherwise it’s too easy to ignore. The more personal the mystery, the lower the drama needed for it to be perceived as such. Mystery noise in your car = mystery illness next door = murder in next town = serial killer in neighboring country

      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
      Show this thread
    3. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      In a non-mystery, obvious explanations will seem individually sufficient and collectively necessary: ISCN. Holmes’ law (when you’ve eliminated impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true) is the related belief that there is *always* a non-mysterious explanation

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      Show this thread
    4. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      Alternately, Holmes’ law is the idea that there are no “real” mysteries. All mysteries are apparent. The explanation will seem obvious in hindsight. Or in other words, will elucidate the apparent mystery within your current world view, requiring no expansion OR contraction of it.

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
      Show this thread
    5. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      So a real, non-Holmesian (like non-Euclidean) mystery is one whose elucidation will require you to expand or contract your world view. If it recurs, or consequences (usually bad, sometimes good) accumulate, it’s a active mystery. Else, a cold mystery.

      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
      Show this thread
    6. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      A mystery is *potential* ontological debt OR credit that you hope will turn out in hindsight to be mere epistemological debt: an apparent mystery. Ie that you can explain it eventually in terms of things you already know, without introducing new entities or eliminating old ones.

      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
      Show this thread
    7. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      Take a weird recurring god-shaped stain on a wall. Atheists hope it can be explained without requiring formation of a new belief in god. Literalist theists hope god won’t be possible to eliminate as a suspect (taking him a step closer to full unemployment, their greatest fear)

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
      Show this thread
    8. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      The thing is, the anticipation of ontological expansion OR contraction is anxiety-provoking even if the material effects of the existence of the mystery are good. Why? Because the presence of a mystery says something about the future computational burden of life itself.

      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
      Show this thread
    9. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      Expansion is easier. Adding a new ontological primitive (‘Thing’) to a world view makes all future thinking harder. It is open-ended future computation cost. Contraction is subtler: you now have to go through and refactor your entire world view to see if Thing can be eliminated.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      Show this thread
      Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      Contraction though is a bounded short term cost with long-term benefit. You only have to audit existing beliefs for the continued necessity of Thing that has lost an important explanatory contest. Its adaptive fitness in your head has been lowered.

      12:29 PM - 29 Nov 2018
      • 1 Retweet
      • 1 Like
      • Joel Suovaniemi
      1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
        1. New conversation
        2. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          Why? Because a world view should be the fewest possible Things all doing comparable amounts of explanatory “work” in your world view. You don’t want epistemological slackers or free loaders in your ontology. Things that elucidate fewer phenomena are computationally costlier.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
          Show this thread
        3. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          If most Things help elucidate 1000 non-mysteries, the one Thing that helps elucidate only 3 things is an ontological dog, the opposite of a god, who elucidates way too many things. You don’t want dogs in your ontology. You want to fire them if possible.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
          Show this thread
        4. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          Less obviously, you also want to fire gods: Things in your ontology that do way too much work, but don’t do them very well. Like only accounting for things in hindsight, never with foresight. Or worse, just naming them. Both gods and dogs are bad head employees. Deadwood.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
          Show this thread
        5. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          A mystery is an opportunity to do some ontological creative destruction in your head. Eliminate a dog that isn’t pulling its weight epistemologically, or a god that’s half-assing too many things.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
          Show this thread
        6. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          Whether a Thing in your head is a god or a dog is actually a relative rather than an absolute condition. A god explains more than other Things, a dog explains less. Gods weaken into either average Things, or turn into dogs and are at risk of being fired. Darwin in your head.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
          Show this thread
        7. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          “Compression” can be viewed as eliminating both dogs and gods from your ontology so you have the fewest possible, equally hard-working ontological primitives in your head. Euclid’s fifth postulate was fired for doing too little. As were aether and phlogiston and other goddogs.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
          Show this thread
        8. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          In general, try to solve mysteries with Holmes’ law. Start with the obvious (abduction), eliminate the impossible (deduction), make less obvious things more obvious (discovery/investigation), repeat till you’re down to 1 explanation. Confirm with further tests (induction)

          1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
          Show this thread
        9. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          But there should be no *mysterious* loose ends. Lestrade and Japp always make the same mistake which Holmes and Poirot don’t: dismiss seemingly trivial loose ends. Holmes and Poirot have a lower threshold for mystification. They won’t accept implausible accounts even for trivia.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
          Show this thread
        10. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          They know that Holmes’ law and ISCN only apply in a closed set. Eliminating the impossible in an open set with explanandum “leaks” doesn’t get you certainty. Just makes you inclined to feed confirmation bias by ignoring “coincidences” or implausibly explaining away “trivialities“

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
          Show this thread
        11. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          Mysteries don’t care about importance. Small mysteries have to be explained as plausibly as big mysteries. Reasonable doubt creeps in as surely through an unimportant implausibility as an important one. *Entire world views are only as plausible as their least plausible argument.*

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
          Show this thread
        12. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          But occasionally, this approach will stall and you’ll be faced with a genuine rather than apparent mystery. You’ll need to follow Dirk Gently’s law: don’t eliminate the impossible. Ie entertain the possibility of needing to adding/eliminating primitives.

          1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
          Show this thread
        13. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          Removing god from “mystery of wall stain” is trivial. Removing god from “creation of life” is not. Adding is never trivial. You can’t add just a local ghost to explain a case. You must add ‘ghost’ as a base class to universe (you have inescapable existence proof).

          1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
          Show this thread
        14. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          Removing a dog — ontological primitive that has very few explanations it is needed in — is something like extinction. Beyond a point, it is doomed as a breeding, self-perpetuating, employed Thing, and any loss of an explanatory contest “job” might be the last.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
          Show this thread
        15. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          Anyhow, that’s it for my elucidation of the mystery of mysteries. Stay mentally healthy and computationally robust by constantly solving both Holmesian apparent, or epistemological, mysteries and Gentlyian ontological ones. Head Darwinism ftw.

          1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes
          Show this thread
        16. Venkatesh Rao‏ @vgr 29 Nov 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation

          See Kathleen Belin’s essay “The Game’s Afoot: Predecessors and Pursuits of a Postmodern Detective Novel” (in Theory and Practice of Classic Detective Fiction) for some of the background that inspired this thread.https://amzn.to/2rbzRSL 

          0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
          Show this thread
        17. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2020 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Imprint
        • Cookies
        • Ads info