Join 📚 Quinn's Highlights
A batch of the best highlights from what Quinn's read, .
How Measurability/Mathematical Bias Limits the Scope of Scientific Inquiry and Human Discovery
Transcript:
Speaker 1
So there's this old paper from the, I think, 1960s by Eugene Vigner, the Nobel Prize physicist. It's called something like, on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. The fun paper, and he's like, there's no good reason why mathematics should work as well as it does. And there's no good reason why there should be a tool that allows humans to predict things as well as math does. There's no good reason. It's kind of nuts. And we should all just be grateful. And he says some other things, but he's basically just kind of being all about how great mathematics is and how there's no good reason why it should be. And it's pretty cool that it does work so well. I think that there's a counter to that, which is that not everything is that easily described that mathematics. And there's lots of things for which mathematics is not that effective at describing. And it's actually just the things that were well described or easily described by mathematics are the things that were discovered using mathematical tools. They're the things that lend themselves that were amenable to mathematical inquiry. And a lot of the things that we're interested in terms of social science and cognitive science and the related philosophical inquiry are things that are much less tangible in terms Of this kind of specification. And you can see it like in a physics equation, right, a physical theory, whether it's about mass or electricity or something else, right, you have a theory about how things work. And then you can write out equations. And all the terms in the equations have units. And they are all directly related to the things that are measurable. The theories are directly about relationships between things that are measured. And in social theories and cognitive theories, so often our theories are about relating constructs. And then we have proxy measurements, but the theory isn't about the relationship between the proxy measures. The theory is about the constructs and the relationships between the constructs that are social in nature, that are cognitive in nature, but aren't the things that are being measured. And so there's this gap. And I don't know the extent to which that gap can be overcome.
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
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
...catch up on these, and many more highlights
Readwise