It seems like you're implying that I disagree with you about "putting ideas before the big world". That's wrong. I completely agree with putting ideas to the big world. What I reject is the exogenous *narrative*. What you want is to show people the actual data from which you're working and *check* to see if they induce a similar idea.
I want to put before the big world my source material. If I'm the only one to induce a given idea, then I'm probably wak [⛧]. If others make the same induction, then maybe WE are on to something. Always, always, always distrust a story-teller. That's where we get the bad connotative meaning for "telling stories" ... i.e. lying. Similarly, a good illusionist gladly shows you the source material, but narratives her way into your mind, making you think something did or didn't happen that didn't or did happen. What we want are endogenous narratives. The reason I made that post in that way is because *that's* how conspiracy theororizing works ... taking lots of disparate little dots and drawing lines between them. The difference between a good inducer and a bad inducer is the extent to which you impose your model/narrative onto the dots versus inducing it from the dots. As SteveS' gamification of QAnon article pointed out, we're all "scientists" in this way. We all want to put our ideas out to the big world. We just need to be more FAIR about it. (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) To see the FAIR point, the analytic vs. narrative persuasion section of one of the wikipedia articles I posted is important, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_theory_(psychology)#Differences_between_analytical_and_narrative_persuasion When/if your exogenous narrative published in Harpers resonates with a bunch of tweed-wearing Harpers readers, you are no different than Bob the QAnon researcher whose narrative resonates with other Q readers. What makes Harpers distinct from QAnon fora is the extent to which their source material is FAIR, the valence of any of their bricks/steps. [⛧] I'll repeat again that "whacko" need not be a bad thing. On 1/5/21 12:36 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Re NST-2. Stipulated. What can I say? I am the product of a mating between > a publisher and an editor. To put my ideas before the big world and thus get > feedback on them from the world has always been my greatest ambition, silly > as it may be. It's how ideas develop. That is why I so value friam. It's > not the Big World, but it is a world and I do get feedback, and my ideas do > -- you may not have noticed -- develop. You are right that that is a very > conservative impulse and I need to be wary of it. But I think framing one's > ideas for a world is a useful discipline as well as a dangerous concession. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
