-
-
Both trumpies and wokies are in the lower left quadrant
1 reply 0 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
A lot of otherwise really smart people don’t believe that humans can be endlessly surprising. They leap from the (valid) observation that most humans are mostly predictable most of the time, especially in groups, to conclusion that human behavior is fundamentally unsurprising.
4 replies 2 retweets 33 likesShow this thread -
All it takes is 1% of humans bding 1% surprising 1% of the time to make human behavior endlessly surprising at all scales. Imitation and entailment do the rest. Great Man Straussianism is a degenerate version of this. It conflates ability to surprise with intrinsic greatness.
1 reply 1 retweet 23 likesShow this thread -
It doesn’t matter what scheme you use to pretend humans are unsurprising — race, class, whatever. Your theories might even be right most of the time if you look for the right kinds of confirmation. But it’s irrelevant because surprise shapes history, not predictability.
1 reply 1 retweet 22 likesShow this thread -
The point of expansive theories of human predictability isn’t to render the future predictable, but to notice the surprising bits more easily. Just like point of the sieve of Eratosthenes is not to prove all numbers are composite but to find the primes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes …
3 replies 2 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Venkatesh Rao Retweeted Venkatesh Rao
There’s a Lump of Complexity fallacy underlying this failed frame. “There’s a fixed amount of complexity in the universe.” So if X turns out to be surprisingly complex you conclude not-X is simple.https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1302666282047696896 …
Venkatesh Rao added,
Venkatesh Rao @vgrI haven’t done this much hands-on crap since freshman engineering in 93, and I noticed it makes you kinda stupid at higher levels of abstraction. The wealth of phenomenology at the log level tempts you into simplistic abstractions. I caught myself making up a manifesto earlier.Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Like Lump of Labor = “there’s a fixed amount of work in the economy” So if robots take some jobs there are fewer jobs for humans. Short-term half-true, long-term bullshit.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Venkatesh Rao Retweeted aphid NO CARRIER RING RING RING CONNECT 1200
Why liberal arts and not the narrower class of humanities? Because in practice in the US, “liberal arts” means one easy-A stats 101 class for “math” and a menu of easy no/low-math courses to meet science credit minimum. Serious math/science majors tend to identify as STEM.https://twitter.com/aphid23/status/1302691221643485185 …
Venkatesh Rao added,
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread
Venkatesh Rao Retweeted Venkatesh Rao
Venkatesh Rao added,
-
-
I did the reverse poll too but can’t find it
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Venkatesh Rao Retweeted Venkatesh Rao
Venkatesh Rao added,
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread
End of conversation
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.