The real purpose of seeking fuck-you money is to stop learning. Interesting and ironic that many self-professed L3s also seek FU$.
-
Show this thread
-
I think I could be happy doing absolutely nothing if I got FU$
Most people appear to have Plans for the condition7 replies 1 retweet 23 likesShow this thread -
Venkatesh Rao Retweeted Delta State Softball
This is sort of what I mean by being against lifelong learning. What most people actually end up with is a kind of limited life training. A finite bag of tricks that stabilizes by ~35 and backstops you under the mounting pressure of a median life. https://twitter.com/deltastatesb/status/1227352699248750592?s=21 …https://twitter.com/DeltaStateSB/status/1227352699248750592 …
Venkatesh Rao added,
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
Life is growing pressure. At a certain point, it collapses your learning curve, and you are a robot governed by your “training” — conditioned already learned adaptive behaviors. Every OODA eventually turns into an O_ODA. It’s a when, not an if.
3 replies 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
Think of it as adaptation reserves. It’s a race to accumulate as much as you can before the pressures of human condition turn you into a non-orienting robot. If you’re lucky, your learning curve cruising altitude will be comfy one with jet stream tailwind. FU$ is a good altitude.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
If you’re *really* lucky you’ll be able to preserve the illusion that you’re still learning. Nah. If there’s no open-ended adaptation stakes with non-diminishing marginal risk, you’re just chasing pleasant stimulation, not learning.
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
wait, why define it that way? learning that *changes* you sucks, but you can consume new info at a steady rate your whole life while it changes your opinion less and less with every new data point.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
because I think that's what best captures the intension of the term as commonly and imo meaningfully used... learning as embodied change and growth. Your definition is very... rationalist. Most learning has almost nothing to do with explicit beliefs/opinions imo.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr
I would think common usage basically means "taking in information." Like, reading, having new facts at your disposal, etc. That's not a niche subcultural thing, right? Like, a doctor would say "I'm always learning, there's always new literature to keep up with."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @vgr
That's an actual thing doctors have said to me, anyhow. They do read a lot! But they don't totally rearrange their lives or their practices over and over again. Anyhow, c'mon, don't diss me because I'm into *book learning*. That's silly. I'm not going to let that get to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
This is a semantic distinction like the one between "research" as in price comparisons for a buying decision and "research" as in science. Two different connotation clusters. I don't consider mere information consumption and formulaic processing of it to be learning.
-
-
Replying to @vgr @s_r_constantin
I'm not dissing you. I don't there is any point to debating where we draw the boundary around "learning" if we're talking about different things.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr @s_r_constantin
The problem is that the folks you're dissing for "lifelong learning" are probably using her definition, not yours. So your initial complaint collapses to "their common usage doesn't match the expectations my esoteric definition raised in me" . . . and whose fault is that, hmm?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.