A megatrend hypothesis inspired by several microtrend that I think are related:
a) waldenponding
b) rise of heavy duty information management methods like @fortelabs BASB (build a second brain)
c) conversational media eating authorial media
d) "hivebrain" jokes/references
-
-
What do I mean. Basically, there's no way to actually handle the volume of information and news that all of us appear to be handling right now. Which means we are getting augmented cognition resources from somewhere. The default place is "social" media.
Prikaži ovu nit -
The ersatz "social" functions of social media are not actually meeting social needs. Yet we indulge in them heavily. Hypothesis 1: Evil addictive UX dark pattern grumble grumble ads hacked muh brain I'm going living in a log cabin Hypothesis 2: They are meeting other needs
Prikaži ovu nit -
There's been a round of pretentious commentary in old media about how Twitter isn't actually very representative blah blah blah. They're missing the point. Those who endure and stay on here are neither meeting social needs, nor imagining they are "representative" of zeitgeist
Prikaži ovu nit -
What those of us who are here are doing is making a deal with the devil (or an angel): in return for being 1-2 years ahead of curve, we play 2nd brain to a shared first brain. We've ceded control of executive attention not to evil companies, but... an emergent oracular brain
Prikaži ovu nit -
I called it playing your part in the Global Social Computer in the Cloud (GSCITC). This has now become a much more important part of the argument I'm developing. If you don't build your own 2nd brain, the GSCITC *is* your first brain and the one in your skull is your 2nd brain.
Prikaži ovu nit -
What can we say about the GSCITC? 1. It is neither good nor evil, it just is 2. It is not smarter or dumber than humans (ie not an AGI or anything), just different 3. Its primary superpower is knowing the future 4. It is comparable to things like "the market"
Prikaži ovu nit -
Ccentral trade-off in managing your participation in GSCITC is: The more you attempt to consciously curate your participation rather than letting it set your priorities, the less oracular power you get in return. Waldenponding, BASB, and unmanaged use are 3 points on a spectrum.
Prikaži ovu nit -
If you choose to unplug completely (and or, do a draconian discipline of extremely tightly curated following, time-budgeting etc) you get zero temporal leverage. At best you'll live int he same present as say readers of the NYT or viewers of Fox News.
Prikaži ovu nit -
If you build a high-maintenance 2nd-brain (whether it is making Anki cards out of everything, or using Tiago's BASB model), you'll give up some temporal leverage in return for 1st brain agency. You get (say) 1 year future-vision but less personal agency than waldenponders.
Prikaži ovu nit -
And finally, if you choose to be completely unmanaged in your use of social media, letting the winds of The Discourse drive what you do, you give up first-brain agency, but in return you get as much oracular power as the GSCITC as it has available to deliver. The Gonzo option.
Prikaži ovu nit -
You can actually extrapolate this model backwards through old media. If waldenponding puts you at zero temporal leverage, relying purely on (say) The Economist, which is about 6 months lag, goes into negative territory.
Prikaži ovu nit -
In general, temporal leverage can range from +2 years to -3000 years (if all you read are ancient Greek classics). The more reactionary you get, the more you need some *other* source of leverage to make up agency deficit. That wallowing in Greek classics better generate alpha.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Can you barbell your way out of this tradeoff? I like barbell thinking for many things but not for temporal agency. A portfolio of 90% greek classics and 10% shitposts just isn't going to do the trick... because the oracular agency of GSCITC participation has sharp thresholds
Prikaži ovu nit -
This addresses my main problem with waldenponding. To the extent *any* kind of thinking requires an input stream to work with, you can't arbitrarily decide a certain degree of retreat from "live" and a certain "deep work project" will be a net positive returns portfolio.
Prikaži ovu nit -
I have never had a problem with social media being a "distraction". My gonzo retreat/approach radar for intuitively calibrating how to balance my temporal leverage portfolio has been pretty good. And more importantly, requires no "addiction management" type behaviors.
Prikaži ovu nit -
I find that when I do get sucked into a longer project, I naturally retreat exactly as much as needed to "feed" that project the info stream it needs. If I need to spend more time with 10-year-old books I naturally do that.
Prikaži ovu nit -
This isn't a superpower. It's evidence the addiction hypothesis is much weaker than it looks. And that for nearly any subject, there is a shit ton more signal in the GSCITC than you might assume. Sign: output from "deep work" is generally very underwhelming.
Prikaži ovu nit -
I have been generally very unimpressed with the work people seem to generate when they go waldenponding to work on supposedly important things. The comparable people who stay more plugged in seem to produce better work.
Prikaži ovu nit -
My kindest reading of people who retreat so far it actually compromises their work is that it is a mental health preservation move because they can't handle the optimum GSCITC immersion for their project. Their work could be improved if they had the stomach for more gonzo-nausea.
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.