I like the idea of a barbell for information consumption, but I've never liked the specific barbell that talebians seem to like -- ancient classics + contemporary fun/pulp trash. 
-
Show this thread
-
I think my barbell is raw history plus present sensory data. So book about 14th century: yes Photo of a new kind of Starbucks coffee cup Hubble image of a new deep sky object: yes "Classics" or "must reads" from any era: probably not E-channel celeb gossip or sports: No.
2 replies 1 retweet 24 likesShow this thread -
The sort of thing I have almost no patience for... concept-heavy philosophical or political writing, even if second-order evidence suggests I'd be simpatico.
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
So I haven't read, and am unlikely to read, something like Deleuze and Guattari, though I enjoy stuff like Manaugh's application of it in Nakatomi spaces/burglar's guide to the city type writing. I might use a concept like rhizome or smooth/striated but not study it in context.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
I think the Talebian barbell is a Straussian barbell. One end is hanging with the Great Minds, the other end is slumming it with the low minds to "keep it real" or something. My barbell is raw information. Stuff you cannot know simply via inference by being smarter.
3 replies 0 retweets 23 likesShow this thread
I basically have no taste for, or interest in, esoteric concepts or their exoteric budget versions. I'll use them if they cross my path and they seem useful for a particular conversation with people who use them, OR if they genuinely capture something that has no everyday notion
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.