Join 📚 Quinn's Highlights
A batch of the best highlights from what Quinn's read, .
The Map is not the Territory
Summary:
Humans often confuse maps with territories, despite evidence from various disciplines.
We wrongly assume that what we measure is what matters, but our values may not have quantifiable metrics. Biometric data can oversimplify complex discussions on health.
This conundrum becomes more significant when considering governance on a larger scale.
How do we count and operate a nation state wisely?
Can social science inform smarter political economies? We must escape the false clarity of information systems that lack collective wisdom.
Transcript:
Speaker 3
There are maps and there are territories and humans frequently confuse the two. No matter how insistently this point has been made by cognitive neuroscience, epistemology, economics, and a score of other disciplines, one common human error is to act as if we know What we should measure and that what we measure is what matters. But what we value doesn't even always have a metric and even reasonable proxies can distort our understanding of and behavior in the world we want to navigate. Even carefully collected biometric data can include the other factors that determine health or can oversimplify a nuanced conversation on the plural and contextual dimensions Of health, transforming goals like functional fitness into something easier to quantify but far less useful. This philosophical conundrum magnifies when we consider governance at scales beyond those at which homo sapiens evolved to grasp intuitively. What should we count to wisely operate a nation state? How do we practice social science in a way that can inform new, smarter species of political economy? And how can we escape this seductive but false clarity of systems that reign information but do not enhance collective wisdom?
Paul Smaldino & C. Thi Nguyen on Problems With Value Metrics & Governance at Scale
COMPLEXITY: Physics of Life
Ambiguity in Communication is Both a Feature and a Bug
Summary:
In 1984, Eisenberg proposed that ambiguity in communication is important and influential.
This idea suggests that being too clear can limit interpretation and hinder coalition-building. Ambiguity can be used to evade accountability, but it is also a general principle of communication.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
It's Eisenberg in 1984 in communication monographs or something. It's this great rambling paper and this idea has been massively influential to me, but he's basically arguing that it would seem like the point of communication should be clarity, To be as clear as possible. For me to say, I mean this and you do know exactly what I mean and that's the goal and ambiguity is therefore a bad thing. He argues that actually no ambiguity is a really important thing and other people have expanded on this. Now the way I think about this is like a blend of Eisenberg and then other people who've come a bit later, but that in a lot of ways if you're trying to get let's say a coalition, you don't Want to say this is exactly what our goal is and this is what we're trying to do. You want to use vague terms so that a bunch of people can sort of map whatever they think that the goal is onto and say that's consistent. It also leads to a reduction in accountability because after you do something and someone says, you said you were going to do this and you say, nah-ah listen to what I said, it's consistent With what I did because what I said was ambiguous. So it's pernicious in a way too. It's used nefariously in a lot of ways by let's say politicians and other kinds of leaders to avoid accountability, but it's also just a general principle of communication I think.
Paul Smaldino & C. Thi Nguyen on Problems With Value Metrics & Governance at Scale
COMPLEXITY: Physics of Life
Have we overshot the scale at which humans can effectively coordinate?
Summary:
We need Jim Rutt to join the conversation to discuss whether we have exceeded our ability to coordinate effectively.
The slow progress of science and the population growth curve are related to this question. Sam Bowles and his work on behavioral engineering and the return of civil society are also important in this discussion.
We are currently witnessing a clash between institutions and individuals, and something has to give.
Transcript:
Speaker 3
We need Jim Rutt on this conversation right because ultimately this is about have we actually overshot the scale at which we can effectively coordinate and all these studies like you Know this I know it's controversial but like the slowed canonical progress of science these kinds of questions they seem related in a way to the sigmoidal curve of population growth. Have we risen above a level at which intelligibility can actually happen and if so where was that level. I mean I remember you know Sam Bowles is another person who has been looming large for me over this whole conversation not only for his work on the problems of viewing humans as agents That can be governed through behavioral engineering via incentive but also because of the paper that he wrote with Wendy Carlin the article he wrote in Vox EU in 2020 on the battle for The COVID-19 narrative which talked about the return of the civil society you know meaning that the Mesoscopic world of guilds and church groups and sports clubs and pubs and neighborhood Organizations mutual aid networks and all of these other human scale sub-done bar number structures that we found ourselves suddenly very much in need of and yet were eroded by the Radical success of both state power and market power in every way it feels like we are in a kind of clash of the titans right now we're like you know we watch institutions going up against Large institutions and people are struggling to remain unpolverized underfoot. At some point something has to give right.
Paul Smaldino & C. Thi Nguyen on Problems With Value Metrics & Governance at Scale
COMPLEXITY: Physics of Life
...catch up on these, and many more highlights
Readwise