Join 📚 Quinn's Highlights
A batch of the best highlights from what Quinn's read, .
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
Social Search Engines: Asking "I do X. Who do you think I should meet?" at Conferences
Summary:
Read the bios, not the session titles. Look for interesting people, not just panelists. Approach the moderators after panels and ask for recommendations.
Repeat this process to meet important people.
Don't oversell yourself when approaching referred individuals.
Offer to buy them a drink. This methodical approach helps navigate the overwhelming number of sessions.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
So how do you choose among all the sessions? You probly have some big, fat book that youre like, my god. How am i possibly gong to tackle any of this? Number one, read the bios, not the sessions. The session titles may not tell you the whole story. For interesting people, not titles of sessions. And secondly, don't just look at the people on the panel. Look at the moderators. And so what i did my first time to south by southwest is i would go to a panel, i would listen to these amazing people on the on a given panel, and then i would go up, not to the alisters on the Panel, afterwards, i would go to the moderator, many of whom are equally impressive, in their own right. And i would go to the moderator, whois usually not nearly as mobbed, and i would give them a quick explanation at sahe thisis my first time at southby. I don't know anyone. Connel lost. Just finish my first book. It's about a, b and c. Personally, i'm interested n at the time, say, brazilian jujito, this, this and this. Is there anyone here you think i might really hit it off with? Anyone you think i should talk to? I'm pretty good at this and this? And they be as sure, yes, i thinkshul o, this person and this person. And i just repeated that line of questioning over and over and over again. And that's how i met many of the people who led to the tipping point for the book. And when i went up to those people who were referred, by the way, don't say so and so, said, we should really meet. Don't, don't oversell it. Just say i went up to them, i asked them this. They said this. I figured, what the hell, maybe we'd hit it off. Can i buy you drink? It's a very methodical way to go about tackling deluge of sessions.
#99 — How to Build a World-Class Network in Record Time
The Tim Ferriss Show
Providing Mental Scaffolding and Tools Drastically Increases Human Cognitive Performance
Summary:
Scaffolding people's experiences with tools like mind mapping can raise their performance above their innate capacities.
Studies have shown up to a 40% increase in cognitive capacity when individuals are taught and encouraged to use tools for problem-solving and understanding. This highlights the significant role of tools in enhancing human cognitive performance, akin to how a computer is described as a 'bicycle for the mind' by Steve Jobs.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
So but Kotzky was this Russian educational theorist, right? And he and his whole notion was, if you scaffold people's experiences, so just training wheels, right, basically, you can raise the level of their capacity and their performance above And beyond their innate capacities. So mutual friend of Danglish Marktemberg, who's in Jordan Hall's, and I was Zack Stein, as a Harvard psychologist, very thoughtful guy. And he was working with an organization, his whole dissertation was on standardized testing and how whacked it is, right? And how the inequities it bakes into the system and that kind of thing. And they did studies where they would have somebody, you know, fundamentally on an intelligence or cognitive capacity assessment, right, makes sense of your life, makes sense of The world, makes sense of this word problem, whatever it would be. And then, you know, and then someone would score, you know, a 60% or a three out of five on a Leica scale, right? But then they would teach them how to mind map, right, a tool scaffolding, right? And they'd say, okay, so now everything you just said there, now hit the like draw connections, draw bubbles, draw dotted lines, like, sort and establish the relationship here about What you were thinking, and then retested them. And they would score a five out of five. So there's sort of up to this 40% swing in someone's intelligence or cognitive capacity, just based on did you give them a tool, right? It's like Steve Jobs saying, you know, that a computer is like a bicycle for the mind, right? And you're like, oh, okay. So how many bicycles for our minds, right? Can we share and create such that we can all pedal faster?
#11 - Jamie Wheal — Tackling the Meaning Crisis
Win-Win with Liv Boeree
...catch up on these, and many more highlights
Readwise