Comments for The Emergent Fool

Comment on The Process by Alex Golubev

Alex Golubev — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:15:00 +0000

http://crookedtimber.org/2010/03/12/determinism/

Comment on Troubling Statistics by Tiltmom

Tiltmom — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:49:28 +0000

Timely article:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_are%2C_its_wrong

Comment on The Innovation Summit by Grace

Grace — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:53:31 +0000

you know how much i love education + tech +innovation- Connect with Dean Kamen re: FIRST http://www.usfirst.org. There may be a great partnership opp (also with Adventures of Mind. maybe that’s the wrong name- the TED like summit for high school kids. Annie knows the woman who organizes it. Met her at EG.)Which students get to attend this? at what cost?

Comment on Help Wanted: Social Capital Uncontractors by David Kullmann

David Kullmann — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:07:31 +0000

Where do I sign up?

Comment on Help Wanted: Social Capital Uncontractors by Rafe Furst

Rafe Furst — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:14:51 +0000

yes: social equity

Comment on Help Wanted: Social Capital Uncontractors by Daniel Horowitz

Daniel Horowitz — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:27:27 +0000

Does the COO get equity in Rafe Furst the superstar?

Comment on Fixing Health Care II: Doctor’s Visits by Smoke Assassin

Smoke Assassin — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:24:17 +0000

Will it make the color of the stretch mark go away?

Comment on Overcoming Bias by Alex Golubev

Alex Golubev — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:09:56 +0000

Rafe, Kevin,
It seems to me that Science 2.0 is an attempt to create a systemic approach to the hypothesis forming (as opposed to “testing”) space of discovery. I think they key part is “ask how other person could be RIGHT – The habit of the scientist is to ask how things can be wrong”. What is a systemic approach to asking how something else can be right? I think this has to do with language and overloading old terms from the last post, but what systemic ways do you know of and can you/we find?

Comment on Overcoming Bias by Eric Brooks

Eric Brooks — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:33:05 +0000

I would also describe myself as getting much befefit out of adversarial disagreement. However, if I were to expand on the original authors point I would say this doesn’t negate the theory that removal of your opinion from your being (depersonalizing it) isn’t necessarily superior. In a two person debate there is barely more than one person to inspect the reasoning at any one time. When we depersonalize our opinion we come closer to having two individuals who might now challenge that opinion. Likely, we also make our ‘opponent’ less adversarial and likely more rational in their thught process as well.

I just hope it turns out to be as much fun:)

Comment on Overcoming Bias by kevindick

kevindick — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:19:54 +0000

It still think the “rational” approach would be to measure what “works” means in this context. Factoring this by personal psychology is fine with me.

For example, given a Myers-Briggs type, it would be nice to know what sort of rationality practices typically produce the most learning, cooperation, happiness, etc. There’s a lot of commonality in personal psychologies.

BTW, I know why adversarial works for me. In combat sports, you rely on your training partners to ruthlessly identify your weaknesses so that you can fix them. I guess I see respectfully arguing as working with a training partner. When you eat a couple of physical or rhetorical jabs, you know there’s a hole you better plug. But I’m probably a bit of a freak in this regard.