Conversation

Replying to
the leap of faith people make about working in generic capabilities rather than solutions to real problems (notice I *didn’t* scare-quote real) is that on average they’ll reshape more problems to be easier than harder, and so faster than more problems get added to the stack
so if in 1980 there were 10 level 4 problems the hope is a general capability will bump 7 of them down to level 3 and bump 3 of them up to level 5 problem load reduction: 4*10-3*7-3*5=40-21-15=4 but then another level 4 problem might have been added in the meantime
13
roslingism isn’t wrong, it’s just misconstrued, it shows that problems are in fact being reshaped and mitigated due to new potentialities, so indeterminate optimism is warranted the problem is rolling the dice may not solve problem in the priority order we think is necessary
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
what about all of this?
Image
2
14
roslingism is popular with free market types because it works well with markets everything will be fixed once the price is right the problem is the price and time may not be right at the same time
1
22
the market is just 1 mechanism in play, possibly the only one, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessary or sufficient for any given problem to get solved right at the right time, so that’s where i part ways with market fetishists who won’t entertain the possibility of alt mechanisms
1
21
other mechanisms, including state action and nonprofit action also reshape problems in unexpected ways, but it’s harder to make the leap of faith that on balance they’ll have a net positive effect that doesn’t mean they’re off the table, just more subject to hostile scrutiny
1
8
the big problem with state and nonprofit mechanisms is that their fans won’t admit that they have as much or worse indeterminacy and externalities built into their operation there is an illusion of determinate agency around them the stronger the illusion, the worse the effects
2
24
the older I get, the less of a stake I feel in big problems because the likelier it is they’ll stay stable/slowly degrading in my lifetime, and the easier it is to focus on my own narrower interests, and at most concern myself with general potentialities over specific mechanisms
2
17
one way I like to reduce this to individual mediocre human scale is to ask what’s at the intersection of effectiveness and non-misery at every life-stage? unlike Chosen Ones™ mediocre humans can’t be effective while miserable (though they needn’t be actually happy)
2
14
Replying to
Chosen Ones™ are different for whatever reason maybe they are geniuses, or were bullied as kids, it doesn’t matter... you can model them as psychohistorical mules, random anomalous events that seed positive or negative potentialities that reshape the Big Problems Stack™
2
23
mediocre people I think should simply try to keep personal misery at bay, but in a broad-minded way, and differently at every life stage, reflecting the stakes of every stage, because if you’re miserable and not a Chosen One™ you’re almost certainly part of the problem
1
23
0-18 your best bet is probably skills development 19-35 probably long-term thinking because you have the positivity of youth to overcome the the negativity burden 36-50 probably support/catalyze positive potentials that are developing in your lifetime 50+... ask me after 2024.
6
32
turning 46 in a few weeks, definitely on the leeward slope of life in my head, almost certainly more life behind me than in front of me neither a part of the problem nor part of the solution to anything, but hopefully a net non-negative presence in the world
4
19
to bring it back around, I can’t really think in time horizons any more, short or long, but I do think in terms of temporal textures like lucky/unlucky timelines, and in terms of transforming bad textures into good ones, or poisonous moods into non-poisonous ones
1
15
Gen X appears 10 years younger than it is because our prime decade fell through the cracks between the death of old media and the rise of social media. 1995-2005, the missing life decade.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
I thought you were ~35
5
31