When one realizes one’s interconnectedness, what have seemed like one-wayenergy flows are seen to be two-way flows, that is, a recursive flow that goesout and comes back in, regardless of the perspective taken
for - othering - feedback loops - When we are othered, it triggers us to other as well - and vice versa - This could also be an excellent candidate for an Othering BEing journey
As we consider the complexity of people, the layered, living contexts of problems faced and the entangled factors that contribute — the monster metaphor seems appropriate
for - multiple reinforcing feedback loops between many different levels - source - article - Medium - Dancing with "Monsters" - Donna Nelham - 2022, May 2
One can find utility in asking questions of their own note box, but why not also leverage the utility of a broader audience asking questions of it as well?!
One of the values of social media is that it can allow you to practice or rehearse the potential value of ideas and potentially getting useful feedback on individual ideas which you may be aggregating into larger works.
Mark: The Japanese hypertext scholar Kumiyo Nakakoji talks about amplified representational talkback, which is a general design phenomenon. An architect, an artist, or a writer puts something on paper and then looks at it. You look at it, and then it seems different from what you had in mind, and you either correct what you’ve written, or you see that what you’ve written is right and correct your bad idea. That kind of representational talkback is fundamental to all sorts of all creative processes, from the sciences to the arts.
fly·wheel/ˈflīˌ(h)wēl/ Learn to pronounce nounnoun: flywheel; plural noun: flywheels; noun: fly-wheel; plural noun: fly-wheelsa heavy revolving wheel in a machine that is used to increase the machine's momentum and thereby provide greater stability or a reserve of available power during interruptions in the delivery of power to the machine.
A potential word to describe some of my theory for evolution, DNA, and complexity
Used often in business to describe increasing momentum
send off your draft or beta orproposal for feedback. Share this Intermediate Packet with a friend,family member, colleague, or collaborator; tell them that it’s still awork-in-process and ask them to send you their thoughts on it. Thenext time you sit down to work on it again, you’ll have their input andsuggestions to add to the mix of material you’re working with.
A major benefit of working in public is that it invites immediate feedback (hopefully positive, constructive criticism) from anyone who might be reading it including pre-built audiences, whether this is through social media or in a classroom setting utilizing discussion or social annotation methods.
This feedback along the way may help to further find flaws in arguments, additional examples of patterns, or links to ideas one may not have considered by themselves.
Sadly, depending on your reader's context and understanding of your work, there are the attendant dangers of context collapse which may provide or elicit the wrong sorts of feedback, not to mention general abuse.
Even without any feedback, we will be better off ifwe try to remember something ourselves (Jang et al. 2012).
Dweck shows convincingly thatthe most reliable predictor for long-term success is having a “growthmindset.” To actively seek and welcome feedback, be it positive ornegative, is one of the most important factors for success (andhappiness) in the long run. Conversely, nothing is a bigger hindranceto personal growth than having a “fixed mindset.” Those who fearand avoid feedback because it might damage their cherishedpositive self-image might feel better in the short term, but will quicklyfall behind in actual performance (Dweck 2006; 2013).
Carol Dweck shows that the most reliable predictor for long-term success is what she calls having a "growth mindset" or the ability to take feedback and change.
This seems related to the idea of endergonic reactions and the growth of complexity as well as the idea of the meaning of life.
What do these systems all have in common? What are their differences? What abstractions can we make from them?
Relate this to https://hypothes.is/a/pdWppIX5EeyhR0NR19OjCQ
Note that we are not making the common argument that making new tools can lead to new subject matter insights for the toolmaker, and vice versa. This is correct, but is much weaker than what we are saying. Rather: making new tools can lead to new subject matter insights for humanity as a whole (i.e., significant original research insights), and vice versa, and this would ideally be a rapidly-turning loop to develop the most transformative tools.
Most people think you build the product then you market it. Thinking in loops means you build the marketing into the product. The product doesn't precede the marketing. The product is the marketing.
By thinking in loops Harry Dry refers to a way of thinking about your acquisition strategy as being part of your product.
This reminds me of Brian Balfour's idea of product-channel fit and how stresses that the product gets shaped by its acquisition channel.
Ericsson claims (2016, p. 98) that there is no deliberate practice possible for knowledge work because there are no objective criteria (so, poor feedback), because the skills aren’t clearly defined, and because techniques for focused skill improvement in these domains aren’t known.
According to Ericsson deliberate practice for knowledge work is not possible because the criteria are not objective (you don't know if you're doing well).
This collides with Dr. Sönke Ahrens' contention that note taking, specifically elaboration, instantiates two feedback loop. One feedback loop in that you can see whether you're capturing the essence of what you're trying to make a note on and a second feedback loop in that you can see whether your note is not only an accurate description of the original idea, but also a complete one.
Put differently, note taking instantiates two feedback loops. One for precision and one for recall.
The success of Arduino has had the perhaps retrograde effect of convincing an entire generation that the way to sense and actuate the physical world is through imperative method calls in C++, shuffling bits and writing to ports, instead of in an environment designed around signal processing, control theory, and rapid and visible exploration. As a result, software engineers find a fluid, responsive programming experience on the screen, and a crude and clumsy programming experience in the world.
But the idea that you might implement a control system in an environment designed for designing control systems — it hasn’t been part of the thinking. This leads to long feedback loops, inflexible designs, and guesswork engineering. But most critically, it denies engineers the sort of exploratory environment that fosters novel ideas.
On short feed back loops and modelling, this talk from Markus Denker, one of the main architects behind Pharo Smalltalk, can be enlightening: Perfection & Feedback Loops, or: why worse is better