Join 📚 Quinn's Highlights
A batch of the best highlights from what Quinn's read, .
Increasing Returns (Order) in a System is a Product of Disorder, Numerosity, and Feedback
Summary:
Disorder, in tandem with feedback, leads to order.
Feedback occurs when information is transmitted and found by others, creating a cycle. This feedback, combined with disorder, results in the phenomenon of increasing returns, where random decisions influence subsequent decisions.
Increasing returns in a system depend on disorder, feedback, and the involvement of a sufficient number of individuals.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
The next one on the list will be feedback. So the disorder only in tandem with feedback is going to lead to order. And the and trail again, an example, the feedback is coming from one end going out, finding something interesting as happenstance by accident. And then it leaves information. Another and finds it. And that's where the feedback starts. And this feedback is, you know, just like, I believe, Brian Arthur was talking about increasing returns. Initially, something random happens. Someone makes a random decision and a few more, say, people make a random decision. And that leads other people to not make a random decision, but make a decision based on that previous one. So this increasing returns phenomenon is a combination of disorder and feedback. And of course, the morosity, you need a few people to make it happen.
The 10 Features of Complex Systems — Part 1
Simplifying Complexity
Balancing Intellectual Exploration and Action
• There is an anti-pattern in certain podcasts that overemphasizes intellect and underemphasizes action.
• Consuming knowledge from brilliant people can be stimulating, but it may lead to overthinking and under-practicing.
• It is important to balance intellectual comprehension with taking action, initiating projects, and practicing.
• Encouraging agency, initiative, entrepreneurship, and proactive energy is crucial.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
One piece of the puzzle, I think, is that there's an anti-pattern of podcasts, especially in the game, B space and related sort of sense making intellectual philosophical spaces, Which is I'm concerned about an overdoing the intellect and an underdoing the action. You know, there's all of the people that you interview on your show. They're brilliant people. You know, and it's like, every time I can get a new episode of my favorite podcast and listen to this person and be like, wow, they're so smart. And it's really stimulating to listen to these smart people that can communicate really clearly. And the concern that I have is that people get into a habit of just consuming knowledge, just listening to more and more different people and assembling this sort of like pristine map Of how they think reality works. And maybe they start a little bit to think about how they might initiate some kind of community or some project or something that they're interested in, but still they do this thing of Like way over engineering and overthinking it and under practicing, under experimenting. And so my energy is to try and interfere with that tendency and push people more towards their agency, more towards their initiative, their entrepreneurship, their get up and do it Kind of energy.
EP51 Richard Bartlett on Self-Organizing Collaboration
The Jim Rutt Show
The Problem of Scale Clash in Human Collaboration
Summary:
The problem goes beyond ideal scale of humanity.
Different things we want involve different scales. Science works on a huge scale for problems like climate change while other things work on medium or small scales.
There is a clash of different scales and no optimal scale.
The big scales tend to win and squash out the small scales.
However, over long time scales, these complex systems tend to implode. It's about a dynamic balance where different forces coexist. How do we handle this in light of global coordination, bioregional organization, and personal relationships at the neighborhood level?
Transcript:
Speaker 2
I think the problem is even worse than what you're describing I'm going to try to pessimize what you said I mean when you ask me a question like have we gone past the ideal scale of humanity That implies that there is an ideal scale that we could plausibly hit if we could somehow convince people to scale back. For me the real worry is there's no ideal scale of humanity because different things we want to be involved in demand different scales science works really big good on a huge scale solving Problems like climate change our massive scale problems that everyone has to get together on and then there are other things that work at medium or small scales and there's just this Unsolvable scale clash my real worry is that different parts of us and our needs call us to different scales and there is not an optimal scale and so I have to participate in these different Scales or in tension with each other and also the big scales tend to win because they get really powerful and so they squash out the small scales.
Speaker 3
Over short time scales though right because over long time scales those like you know this is the Bob May will a complex system large complex system be stable question it's like at some Point those things tend to implode so it's not about like an equilibrium so much as it is about a a dynamic balance or a zone at which these different forces are able to coexist how do you Deal with all of this in light of both the need for global coordination and bioregional organization and neighborhood level personal relationships etc.
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