Joy, Bill. “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” Wired, April 1, 2000. https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/.

Annotation url: urn:x-pdf:753822a812c861180bef23232a806ec0

Annotations: https://jonudell.info/h/facet/?user=chrisaldrich&url=urn%3Ax-pdf%3A753822a812c861180bef23232a806ec0&max=100&exactTagSearch=true&expanded=true

Reprints available at: - Joy, Bill. “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” 2000. AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook 2001, edited by Albert H. Teich et al., Amer Assn for the Advancement of Science, 2002, pp. 47–75. Google Books, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Integrity_in_Scientific_Research/0X-1g8YElcsC.<br /> - Joy, Bill. “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” 2000. Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance, by Gary E. Marchant and Wendell Wallach, edited by Gary E. Marchant and Wendell Wallach, 1st ed., Routledge, 2020, pp. 65–71.

• for: dualism, dualism - psychology, unintended consequences, unintended consequences - dualism in psychology, progress trap, progress trap - dualism in psychology

• paraphrase

  • The dualism of scientific materialism gives rise to one-person psychologies
    • and are arguably complicit in much of the psychological and social damage we are now recognising.
  • For instance, a good deal of the historical denial of the role of psychological and social trauma has been traced
    • back to the Freudian model’s almost exclusive focus on the internal world;
      • the actual impact of others and society has been, as a result, relatively ignored.
  • Modern psychiatry, which accepts the same philosophical model but changes the level of explanation, is just as culpable.
  • Likewise CBT, with its focus on dysfunctional thought patterns and rational remedies administered from the outside, also follows the same misguided philosophy.

• question

  • what are concrete ways this has caused harm?
• future work
  • perform literature review on case studies where Winnicott's approach has been a more constructive therapeutic one

it seems like the benefits of employee ownership are the highest when... * engagement is low * you have a high cashflow / profitable business that someone would actually want to buy

In general, being able to adapt to asynchronous styles of working and learning will be important

Historical inequity is fueled by historical practices. "The way we've always done it" can feel perfectly innocuous while at the same time actually be massively harmful. We know things aren't right, inquiry into what is wrong is our path to a more just world.

make sure there is space during standup for chit-chat.

Lots of difficult things with this text, including the title. The obsession on measurable “smarts” is an important topic and the possible measures to prevent this obsession from impacting (US) society make sense. But it’s really tricky to discuss intelligence in such ways. Part of the text reads as further essentialisation of measured intelligence. Yet it sounds clear from the possible measures described that this form of intelligence takes at least part of its meaning in a given social context.

Maybe the deep issue with a text like this is that it’s hard to get people to shift from one consistent mindframe (paradigm, episteme) to another. More specifically, it’s hard to discuss intelligence in a context where the concept has become so loaded.

Would have lots more to say about this from my parents’ experiences (an occupational therapist who spent a career with people labelled as having “intellectual disabilities” and a psychopedagogue who worked in “special education” with students from a low-income neighbourhood who had “learning disabilities”). Maybe later.

Marie Wallace's perspective on the potential of bigdata analytics, specifically analysis of human networks, in the context of creating a smarter workplace.