k > k̃ + 1

δ = 0.05

Maybe some of the severe cases in a week’s time will be due to people that are not infected today but will get infected tomorrow.

“safe” if b > m_d

within a week

neoteric

adj.
Of recent origin; modern.
New; recent in origin; modern.
n.
A modern.

a means of intellectual and artistic cross-fertilization

not just external reality but how our understanding of reality is constructed because it is all part of reality

unask the question

has room for observed disagreement without a need to force competing views out so that they fit a model.

but now the data includes our and others’ perceptions

maybe we can apply the revealed/stated duality to identity to resolve the confusion of being both whatever you say you are and whatever others say you are

we don’t have to chose to look at only one of revealed or stated preferences. As duals they provide different insights into the same underlying preferences and give us a way to see into our complex and often opaque decision making process

reliable information about your preferences at the cost of ignoring why you made particular choices

revealed preference

Paul Samuelson

economics

So it seems we have a problem. People want to be able to choose how others think of them, yet wanting a particular identity is not enough to get it. Identity can become confusing and frustrating in cases where, say, I think of myself as kind but others don’t see me that way. How do I deal with this conflict? Do I know the essential me better than others? And if so, why don’t they see it? And if they see the “real” me, what does that mean about the value of my self-perceptions? Can I be something even if no one thinks I am, and if not does that mean I never really had the right to choose my identity?

Much of what we might call identity is decided by others even if we don’t like it. I don’t get to decide if you think I’m tall or short: you’re going to look at me and categorize my height. I might want you to think of me in a particular way, but you have to make your own determination about me, and all I can do is present information via various channels to try to influence your decision.

In modern America, many people think of their identity as a thing they own. If I say I’m a Brony, have a non-binary gender, or identify as transracial, then that’s it, and so much the worse for you if you perceive me as otherwise. This is an empowering idea that lets people escape the confines others may try to put on them and seems to make people happier than being forced into identities they don’t want. But it comes at the cost of ignoring the reality that you are not in full control of your identity.

every time the word is used so casually, it loses its power to identify and label actual white supremacists.

Sommers was dunderheaded to go on tour with Yiannopoulos

of intersectional feminism

a hero among young intersectional feminists and a prominent voice in social justice conversations on Twitter

hold their feet to the fire and get them to answer for themselves. (Not that Rogan does much of this, which is a real problem considering the people he talks with

a classroom where, if the kid next to you is acting out, the teacher will send both of you to detention just to make a point.

anarcho-capitalist

“shitposting” (posting offensive and inflammatory things online to get a rise out of people).

So. You will have to figure out for yourself how to evaluate what you have just read. What considerations would be relevant? What would it even mean for it to be accurate or useful? Such investigation is the essence of meta-systematicity—because there are no predetermined criteria or methods, and no preexisting problem definition or conceptual framework to decide how to think about it.

her specific approach to management here is not definitional of stage five. As she says, interpersonal training and rewarding broad competence are not The Right Way. What is fiveish is the attitude of reasoned experimental curiosity, not aiming for any final conclusion or achievement, but for ongoing responsive fluidity.

Learning technical skills in very different fields is one of the best strategies for developing meta-systematicity

“fluid competence,” more than excellence in a specific role.

meta-rationality, which understands relationships between representations and reality not as truths but as tools.

An org chart is not reality, and you don’t change reality by changing the representation. You have to keep asking “how does this representation relate to the nuts-and-bolts reality of how these particular people work together?”

That dynamic space is not enclosed by her skull, nor limited to her sphere of responsibility. It is co-defined by Carlos, and to varying extents by everyone she interacts with. It includes “our staff, enterprise customers, partners, investors, the IT media, and the professional community.” This is not communal-mode merging; she’s still perfectly clear that she and Carlos are dissimilar people. (And it’s certainly not the monist fantasy of “becoming one with everything.”) It’s an understanding that meaning plays out in interaction, not in her head. She has not ceded territory; she has expanded by recognizing that she contributes to, but does not need to individually own, the space.

Prithi now values the reevaluation of ontological commitments more for the sake of allowing the ongoing unfolding of meaning than for any specific systemic improvement it may deliver. This is definitional for stage five.

are shams

emotionally isolating, intellectually limiting, and wearyingly familiar.

No one has been able to give a detailed, empirically adequate explanation of what “the scientific method” is, so advocating it is nearly vacuous.

denial of nebulosity

anti-rationalism is any worked-out denial of either 1 or 2

gives nebulous—but useful—answers

In this way, the true intellectual, the greatest intervention of all by an intellectual, is to didactically ensure that, like a tool that is destroyed by the thing it constructs, they themselves become superfluous.

As such, we can at the very least postulate a scenario where it is a good thing that the dissolution of the intellectual has occurred: a situation where all are aware that they can never abdicate their responsibility as human beings to be their own truth-determiner.

How is a layman to tell the different values of the information they have access to? Thus, although in a new form, the contention that the ability to be an intellectual in this age of ours is still the dominion of the few.

The intellectual is burdened by this; hence, it is the intellectual’s responsibility to make morally upright interventions rather than remain ensconced in the ivory tower. Indeed, those who find themselves in such privileged positions that do not feel burdened by this responsibility cannot, and are not to be taken as intellectuals at all.

Like it or not, the idea of the intellectual as a bearer of objectivity and “truth” is socialized into the masses in our post-traditional societies.

Artistic, social, political, and cultural traditions are all in some sense a collective body, which in Cretan’s view makes them a herd. This is false. The possibility of communal existence, collective modes of expression, and belonging need not be described in such a denigrating manner. The intellectual must intervene; the nature of this intervention is unspecified.

it may in practice simply aid the more entrenched power (because it has greater resistance) at the expense of the undeveloped.

For example, we accept the authority of a doctor; however, if we told a doctor that we were experiencing a headache and the doctor replied, “We need to cut your leg off,” we would not simply follow this command. In other words, our investments into authority are not random and irrational but rather based on a host of judgments and assumptions based on our intellect and experience.

One clear analogy is with the medical doctor: because of our general knowledge and trust in the higher education system and vocational experience, the vast majority of us simply invest in this authority without any means by which to explore or comprehend what they are doing or saying. We simply take the prescription and put our lives in their hands.