Join 📚 Quinn's Highlights
A batch of the best highlights from what Quinn's read, .
When business leaders describe their organisational cultures as embracing what it means to ‘fail fast’ or suggesting that we are all in a ‘learning organisation’, it rings hollow if the aspirations are not lived and structurally supported. Employees see through the public relations of an organisation that markets itself as innovative yet executes the same playbook year after year.
Driving Data Projects: A Comprehensive Guide
Haskell, Christine
Source of the Meaning Crisis: Contradictions Between Societal Progress and Global Crises
Summary:
The current societal malaise and victimhood culture are attributed to a complex interplay of factors, including a disconnection from the positives of societal progress and the simultaneous awareness of global crises like climate change.
The author explains that while the world is objectively getting better, the incessant exposure to negative news triggers hyper-vigilance and threat response, leading to a cognitive dissonance between feeling alive and needing to practice triage. This contradictory experience fosters a sense of confusion and psychological distress in individuals, creating a state of being 'crazy making.'
Transcript:
Speaker 2
You because you wrote a book recently called recapture the Rapture, which is trying to address the seeming sort of psychological ills of our society. Can you try and sort of summarize what your thesis is on why it seems like victimhood culture has become so dominant? Disconnection, general malaise people are having, is it, is it a function of, you know, fear of the future? We've been hearing, you know, doom and gloom from climate change and all these other growing risks? Or is it something more fundamental going on inside a psychologically that is giving rise to this? I mean, I think without a doubt, like, what on earth is going wrong these days? And why are so many people sad, suffering, disconnected?
Speaker 1
I think that's just a massive, multi-variable situation. But one of the things that I mentioned in that book was just things are getting exponentially better, and things are getting exponentially worse at the very same time. And trying to map to intersecting, contradicting, overlapping, exponential curves. Confusing. Back as the imagination. I mean, with the whole three-body problem in physics, which I know you must be deeply aware of, everybody, it's very hard to be like sun and moon and stars, you know, like you get you. Panotales, ah! Yeah, and we are eight billion bodies, all with volition, you know, and pesky human nature. So trying to map what is going on as things are simultaneously Stephen Pinker and Hans Rosling, and all the lot of like, if it bleeds, it leads, you've been massively misled. The world is safer, better, cheaper, more prosperous than it's ever been. Ta-da. And you're like, oh, thank God. And then you click over to polar bears and, you know, throw it to Glacier and all of these things, you're like, oh, no, which is it? Right. So as we have that initial experience, which naturally triggers hyper-vigilance and threat response, oh, shit. Right? Are we coming alive? All this wonderful stuff. My own personal life, my personal growth, my relationships, my career, where am I coming alive? That's the inquiry I'm in. Or are we staying alive? And I need to be practicing triage, right? And in a threat response and toggling back and forth between those two is crazy making.
#11 - Jamie Wheal — Tackling the Meaning Crisis
Win-Win with Liv Boeree
The Danger of Incorrectly Mapping Between Scientific Measures and Truth
Transcript:
Speaker 1
And it's a problem when scientific culture tolerates too much ambiguity. There's always a caveat there, which is that at the early stage of theory development, sometimes you need ambiguity because you don't actually know really what you're talking about Yet. And so you need to allow for multiple interpretations to be possible until you can figure out what you mean. But a mature theory should be minimally ambiguous. This is at odds with things like metrics in terms of let's say how to evaluate something because people think, oh, well, it's scientific. Therefore, I want to use this to then therefore impose a value judge on something. It's better because it has a higher score on it. But that's not what science is actually able to do. Science can say, it has this score and it measures this thing because what it measures is this. If you say what it measures is this, and therefore it means this other thing, that's a problem because that's a false mapping. And it's not really about ambiguity versus precision. It's about, I think, the imprecision of the mapping between the measure and the term. So if you want to measure something like happiness or economic prosperity, you can say, well, we'll measure the genie coefficient, we'll measure GDP. But those are rigorous, clearly unambiguous measures. They have a meaning. This is what they are. This is how we measure them. We can compare things on this measure. And that's not problematic until you then say, and it is better to have a higher GDP full stop.
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