Conversation

Replying to
So you talk about earlier and later scenes. You can only go from earlier to later. These are not references to maturity level but exit order. If it looks like you’re going backwards it is always through irony or a related mode. Later scenes will be more dissonant.
1
8
Scenes form a developmental partially ordered sequence. So a question like “where do you go if you leave tech role in Silicon Valley?” is well-posed. You’re unlikely to go get an MBA and join Wall Street for eg, but likely to go to LA and get into entertainment media.
1
11
It’s a partial order so you can move to any scene that is not-upstream. Even reactionary moves are fundamentally ironic. Tech to trad is not the same as just being trad. So not-upstream.
1
7
I’m currently very curious about “post-tech” scenes. I have an inventory but not a map: crypto, entertainment, trad, waldenponding, neoreaction, local politics, biotech. Each is post in a different way. Tech is a bottleneck scene. Everything is either pre-tech or post-tech.
3
25
It is locally total order. Only 1 scene at a time is the bottleneck usually. Other scenes don’t induce total pre/post cuts.
2
7
Replying to
i would agree with a graph of "likely exit nodes" from any given scene, but disagree that there is an ordering, temporal or otherwise.
1
1
Replying to
Well if there’s a net direction locally (A to be is more likely than B to A) for every pair with significant flow, you’ll get at least a local order. I suspect if you impose a minimum net flow threshold to filter random noise you’ll get a proper DAG.
1
2
Replying to
doesn't the direction of significant flow depend on local cultural factors too though?
2
Replying to and
also perhaps more relevantly there can be significant flow in both directions, even locally. e.g. a 70/30 split between a->b and b->a would ideally not remove b->a from the graph, it's still significant.
1
Replying to
Yeah, the overall graph of all flows, including both low absolute and net levels, probably has no structure, since almost any pair in any direction will have *some* flow due to pure randomness. The question is how to threshold to get to robust flow patterns.
Replying to and
My these is basically that there is a historical direction to the grain of living scenes that’s independent of their youth/maturity. We have aging rock groupies and young trad knitters, so it looks confusing, but the exit patterns are a revealed preference sign of growth vectors
1
Replying to
my point is that there will be pairs, (a, b), that have non-random flows in both directions, where people "naturally belong" in either a or b but often end up in the other one due to environment, and neither one is intrinsically more compelling.
1
Replying to
Example of the sort of thing you mean? Mac vs PC might be one. I went PC to Mac but have no strong sense of one being “later” evolutionarily. But then again, that’s more consumption choice than scene. It’s not like I party with Mac types and used to party with PC types.
1
Show replies