Conversation

Replying to
If you’re curious, I couldn’t get wheel alignment perfect. So an open-loop straight line program would cause a slow turn. I’d have had to either true the steering, compensate in software or design and add a position feedback sensor loop... lost patience, gave up.
1
1
Same story in software. Software has both stack levels (source, compiled, environment...) and lifecycle stages (dev/production). I’ve built complex single-level/single-stage things (Matlab basically) but go to 2, and I’ve never gotten beyond hello-world level complexity.
1
3
Implication: I only hold 1 context in head at a time and largely surf natural dynamics in that context intuitively, and by learning patterns of “luck”. Go to 2 contexts and intuition breaks, coupled 2-context good luck becomes unlikely, “normal accident” bad luck becomes likely
1
1
This is almost the definition of least-effort slacking. The one mitigating factor is that sometimes a context boundary that is taken seriously by others is not actually real so you can exploit a broader single context and seem like a holistic mind-like-water systems thinker.
1
3
Example: sociology and management theory are pretty much the same. You need no context switching between them really, just some jargon mapping. Intuition and insight-luck patterns work in nearly seamless ways across them. Ignore the boundary and you’ll look like a genius.
1
7
Sometimes you get really meta-lucky and see a really “long” single-context pathway cutting across multiple specialized stack levels/lifecycle stages. Like a wormhole through learning space. Any move you make in this wormhole context looks like magic to disciplined learners.
1
3
I *think* this is what looks like “strategic insight” (coup d’oeil) from the outside. It’s really a cheap exploit in the landscape of other people’s socially embodied institutional ways of knowing, due to improbable concurrences of insubstantial context boundaries. End </sidebar>
1
3
Third, it doesn’t work on things that take more time than social-cache-refresh time constants. For example, “blockchain” was in hive mind for a year, so I was having interesting thoughts about it. But serious work on blockchain takes 3+ yrs. So I’m recession-weak on the subject.
1
1
If I had to name this thinking/pseudo-learning style given its tricks, strengths, and weaknesses, it would probably be “parasitic”. Low-energy, low-effort, derivative survivalism. Like the grasshopper in ant and grasshopper story. Occasionally predatory rather than parasitic.
1
3
If you find this inspirational/aspirational at some level, curb your enthusiasm. It’s more curse than blessing. There’s something very unsatisfying about this, which is why every year or two I take a run at a “deeper” project that would come easier to disciplined learners.
1
7
Hasn’t worked yet, but I’m optimistic I’ll eventually do at least one 2+ layer deep thing in my life that’s more than right-brained arbitrage/surfing or wormhole trickery of environmental learning.
Replying to
That’s what we like to tell ourselves but no. It’s not hard. No tuning required. Only “hard” thing possibly is getting de-addicted from rewards and recognition that accompany disciplined 2+ deep skills.
1