Fwd: Re: Tagged "Get off my lawn!"

[gepr]

Oops.  I meant to spam everyone with this, not just Leigh.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Tagged "Get off my lawn!"
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 12:38:25 -0700
From: glen <[hidden email]>
To: Leigh Fanning <[hidden email]>


The "click bait" meme is pretty interesting, too.  It seems (to me) related to science journalism (or the lack thereof).  However, I've always worried about my apophenia.  Are all these things related (programming by poking, hyper-specialization, supervenience, ADHD, click bait, the monotonic NPI, etc.)?  If I could only tie in the Singularians, I'd be ready for an all-out conspiracy theory!

Seriously, though.  In an upcoming publication, some of the domain people suggested we use the term "rejected" (or "refuted" or whatnot) in place of our term "falsified".  This highlights that when writing for a given audience, there's this tension between using language that does both of 2 things: 1) evokes extant concepts in the readers' heads and 2) avoids evoking the wrong concepts in their heads.  Such tension is part of the art of good writing.  Things like click bait, "dog whistling", and the much more subtle go-to phrasing you're referring to are similar to the change in the state of programming Sussman pointed out.

A good example (I think) is the noise surrounding Justin Trudeau's "explanation" of quantum computing.  Do we laud him for being a skilled parrot?  Is he (merely) a skilled parrot?  It's interesting to contrast him with Sarah Palin, who strikes me as a skilled parrot, albeit shallower than Trudeau ... or perhaps with a slightly different skill set.  Another related kerfuffle is the accusation that Bill Nye isn't a scientist.  We could slide down the slippery slope and say the same thing about Carl Sagan.  Is any popularization effort destined to be plagued with similar problems presented by climate denial, where "credentials" are munged to support one or another motivation?

In a world governed by breadth-preference thinkers, credentials and ad hominem are crucial rhetorical tools.  It's become a fallacy to _not_ insult one's opponent.  Is it any wonder Trump or someone like him would end up becoming President?  He's just following right along from the impact of television on elected offices all the way up through online bullying to recruiting ISIS fighters.

We are steadily becoming a tissue/film, rather than a collection of individuals.



On 05/10/2016 09:24 AM, Leigh Fanning wrote:

> Ain't that the truth.  Furthermore, I've noted that the range of words
> used in conversations is steadily being restricted to words people are
> commonly using with their e-conversations.  Hence, entire exchanges
> are becoming meaningless piles of non-expression populated with "awesome,"
> "there you go," "no problem," and the ever-sincere "thanks so much."
>
> The only antidote is to step away from the screen as often as possible
> and go back to real thinking and expression.  
>
> It's not an old vs. young dichotomy.  It's based on a threshold of
> net consumption.  Here's a general possible essay title, with multiple
> correct inferential meanings, summarizing the downgrading of
> collective human intellectual capacity:
>
> Internet considered harmful.  
>
> (Doh! I'm infected!  'considered harmful'
> has it's own net niche as the go-to title phrasing for tech
> criticism essays!  This virus engenders systemic laziness
> in thought formation!)

--
⛧ glen



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com