for - scientists warning - 2024 state of the climate report - adjacency - 2024 US election - Trump - scientists warning - state of the climate - cognitive dissonance - 4P knowledge framework - Johan Rockstrom, Michael Mann, William Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Timothy Lenton, Jillian Gregg, Naomi Oreskes, Stefan Rahmstorf, Thomas Newsome

adjacency - between - 2024 state of the climate report - scientists warning - political polarization - Trump reelection - climate communication - cognitive dissonance - adjacency relationship - The scientists warning are having limited effect as a tool for mass climate communications - The fact that so many people are supporting climate denying candidates like Trump demonstrates the cognitive dissonance and lack of effective climate communications strategy - It is insightful to analyze from 4P knowledge framework: - propositional knowledge - perspectival knowledge - participatory knowledge - procedural knowledge - Every person is situated and located somewhere unique and specific in life - 4 P knowledge is concurrent - When climate scientists communicate propositional knowledge via mass media, it is a kind of broadcast message that can lose salience if the other 3 types of knowledge have a mismatch: - without perspectival knowledge context, the knowledge can have no meaning or priority - without procedural knowledge, the knowledge is theoretical and does not lead to a better life - without participatory knowledge, the receiver feels alienated

Taking note of any serious ideas which are contrary to our own conceptions is important because this may lead us to new realizations about concretes which in turn leads to new frontiers of knowledge.

One must find a way to push through potential cognitive dissonance to compare ideas and sharpen them over time.

• for: cognitive dissonance, local vs global, polycrisis - cognitive dissonance

• A good observation
  • about the cognitive dissonance of the situation

If the thesis is sound, then logically we should expect the instances where people have decided to "use terribly slow scripting and techniques" to produce better programs; the not-slow (non-"scripting") stuff to be worse.

You can only pick one:

• software is worse because hardware improvements mean that what were previously noticeable inefficiencies are no longer noticeable
• programs that are written in low-level languages and don't as much incur runtime overheads are better on average because they're written in low-level languages that aren't as wasteful

The thing that gets me about takes like this is that it's all the stuff below the Web content layer that accounts for what makes all this stuff harder than it needs to be.

What's the hard part about distributing content (static or not, but let's go with static for simplicity)? It's registering a domain, updating DNS, and keeping a Web server up—all systems that have nothing to do with the "infernal" trio and also generally programmed in what are typically described as saner languages and their traditions. It's either that, or it's relying on somebody else, like GitHub Pages, and integrating the implementation details/design decisions for their value-add into your workflow.

To "build a platform" is ambiguous, but it sounds a lot like "creating a server-side application to serve non-static content and handle associated requests". Is the infernal trio to blame for the difficulties of that, too?

With this comment, the anti-JS position is becoming increasingly untenable. The author earlier suggested C as an alternative. So their contention is that it's easier to write bug-free code in C than it is in JS. This is silly.

C hackers like Fabrice Bellard don't choose C for the things they do because it's easier to write bug-free code in C.

There's a weird (read: "weirdly obvious") category error here. NodeJS is not a language. (This wouldn't be so notable if the comment didn't go on to say "The key point is writing to an interface and not an implementation.")

The puzzle piece that fits the shape of the hole here is "JS". JS is the language, NodeJS is one of its implementations—and chubot knew both of these things already, so it's odd that it was expressed this way. Plus, there's a lot more diversity of JS implementations than exist for e.g. Python...

!- for : climate change, rapid whole system change * This is a common response of people conditioned to the status quo personware - it is overwhelming and threatening * Defensiveness and conservatism to preserve the familiar elements of the status quo is a common response, including all forms of climate denialism * Early stages of pandemic in which people were afraid to don masks for fear of being ostracized

!- example ; lebenswelt, lebenslage, multi-meaningverse, perspectival knowing, situatedness

!- key insight : social dissonance between their aspirations and demand of social roles they feel compelled to obey.

isolated nor learned in an isolated fashion, but hang together in a network of ideas, or “latticework of mental models” (Munger, 1994), it becomes easier to make sense of new information. That makes it easier not only to learn and remember, but also to retrieve the information later in the moment and context it is needed.

Our natural memories are limited in their capacities, but it becomes easier to remember facts when they've got an association to other things in our minds. The building of mental models makes it easier to acquire and remember new information. The down side is that it may make it harder to dramatically change those mental models and re-associate knowledge to them without additional amounts of work.

The mental work involved here may be one of the reasons for some cognitive biases and the reason why people are more apt to stay stuck in their mental ruts. An example would be not changing their minds about ideas of racism and inequality, both because it's easier to keep their pre-existing ideas and biases than to do the necessary work to change their minds. Similar things come into play with respect to tribalism and political party identifications as well.

This could be an interesting area to explore more deeply. Connect with George Lakoff.

@choppa1890 says "will read and get mad about one of these days"

With respect.....this learned attitude is the leading contributor to the problem with modern America. The quote reflects cognitive dissonance that is dealt with through a weak form of denial. @choppa1890 uses a mentally acceptable task (posting in Hypothesis) and 'avoidance', to resolve the dissonance. @choppa1890 can not allow him/herself to read the article, create knowledge and emotion. It's too much to think about so I will make a note in Hypothesis and move on!

Examples of this sort of non-logical behaviour used to represent identity can be found in fiction in:

• Dr. Seuss' The Butter Battle Book (Random House,1984) which is based on
• the war between Lilliput and Blefuscu in Jonathan Swift's 1726 satire Gulliver's Travels, which was based on an argument over the correct end to crack an egg once soft-boiled.

It almost seems related to creating identity politics as bike-shedding because the real issues are so complex that most people can't grasp all the nuances, so it's easier to choose sides based on some completely other heuristic. Changing sides later on causes too much cognitive dissonance, so once on a path, one must stick to it.