5 ms·

Reminds me of the "Tradition is smarter than you are" article that was posted here a few days ago. http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/08/tradition-is-smar

Reminds me of the "Tradition is smarter than you are" article that was posted here a few days ago. http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/08/tradition-is-smarter-than-you-are.html http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/08/tradition-is-smar...

emiliobumachar 7y ago
Great book, highly recommended. Another review of it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the-secret-of-our-success/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the-secret...
wsc981 7y ago
Both this article and the one you linked reminded me also of what Nassim Nicholas Taleb described in "The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority" [0]. > The main idea behind complex systems is that the ensemble behaves in way not predicted by the components. The interactions matter more than the nature of the units. Studying individual ants will never (one can safely say never for most such situations), never give us an idea on how the ant colony operates. For that, one needs to understand an ant colony as an ant colony, no less, no more, not a collection of ants. This is called an “emergent” property of the whole, by which parts and whole differ because what matters is the interactions between such parts. And interactions can obey very simple rules. The rule we discuss in this chapter is the minority rule. > The best example I know that gives insights into the functioning of a complex system is with the following situation. It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority. If it seems absurd, it is because our scientific intuitions aren’t calibrated for that (fughedabout scientific and academic intuitions and snap judgments; they don’t work and your standard intellectualization fails with complex systems, though not your grandmothers’ wisdom). Of course in this context the grandmothers' wisdom is tradition in some way, as this is passed down by generations. Same as many practices in religion, some of which that might have been useful at some time (like not eating pig meat, because one would get sick quicker as pigs might eat anything they would find). I live in Thailand and my girlfriend is Buddhist. Often I just go with the flow with regards to Buddhist practices, even as a non-believer, cause there might be some real use for these practices that I don't understand as a non-believer. At the very least it will make the Thai people in our village accept me more whenever they see me doing the same actions as my girlfriend at our local temple (burn incense, "pray" to some statue, etc...). --- [0]: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
- Psyladine 7y ago
  >The interactions matter more than the nature of the units. Studying individual ants will never (one can safely say never for most such situations), never give us an idea on how the ant colony operates. For that, one needs to understand an ant colony as an ant colony, no less, no more, not a collection of ants. This is called an “emergent” property of the whole, by which parts and whole differ because what matters is the interactions between such parts. And interactions can obey very simple rules. I wish Taleb would give more on identifying & learning on a systems wide approach. For abstractions and "less than obvious" spheres this becomes difficult to separate the forest from the tree, or is the forest the system, or the genera of the plant in question, or its bordering systems, etc... behaviors and patterns which are emergent only at the individual level make '10,000 foot views' harder to perceive, let alone examine and extrapolate from "obey very simple rules"
  - K0SM0S 7y ago
    I really appreciate Taleb's ideas in general, but this one strikes me as emotionally-driven, vastly more "intuitive" than substantiated. It's a like a world chess master or NBA player telling others "play better!" — what Taleb means here, imho, is that too many scientists fail to propose models that fits his mathematical perception, his world view, but if it were that simple, he'd have a book called "system thinking". He touches a lot on how he views things, so you can infer a lot of his mental framework from reading e.g. the Black Swan or Antifragile — both great in their own respect. But simple rules on this topic, that would/will be groundbreaking. I honestly pride myself as a "transdisciplinary" mind (which comes with a lot of "imposter-of-all-trades" syndrom, but meh, it's also humbling to realize the path to knowledge may not be the most rewarding short-term path). Taleb is one of those relatively "wide" minds, he's able to speak with substance on a lot of domains, but like many abstract thinkers I think he displays a lot of the casualness towards the difficulty of actual implementation. It's great to talk about systems but the reality is often about refactoring horrible codebases and if it works you'd rather spend more money on the actual mission that making things and concepts prettier. Even, especially at the edge. My 2 cts obviously. TL;DR, I wouldn't look much into it. It's one of those things we only hear because who says it is famous, not because there's so much velocity to the idea.

emiliobumachar 7y ago

Great book, highly recommended. Another review of it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the-secret-of-our-success/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the-secret...

wsc981 7y ago

Both this article and the one you linked reminded me also of what Nassim Nicholas Taleb described in "The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority" [0]. > The main idea behind complex systems is that the ensemble behaves in way not predicted by the components. The interactions matter more than the nature of the units. Studying individual ants will never (one can safely say never for most such situations), never give us an idea on how the ant colony operates. For that, one needs to understand an ant colony as an ant colony, no less, no more, not a collection of ants. This is called an “emergent” property of the whole, by which parts and whole differ because what matters is the interactions between such parts. And interactions can obey very simple rules. The rule we discuss in this chapter is the minority rule. > The best example I know that gives insights into the functioning of a complex system is with the following situation. It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority. If it seems absurd, it is because our scientific intuitions aren’t calibrated for that (fughedabout scientific and academic intuitions and snap judgments; they don’t work and your standard intellectualization fails with complex systems, though not your grandmothers’ wisdom). Of course in this context the grandmothers' wisdom is tradition in some way, as this is passed down by generations. Same as many practices in religion, some of which that might have been useful at some time (like not eating pig meat, because one would get sick quicker as pigs might eat anything they would find). I live in Thailand and my girlfriend is Buddhist. Often I just go with the flow with regards to Buddhist practices, even as a non-believer, cause there might be some real use for these practices that I don't understand as a non-believer. At the very least it will make the Thai people in our village accept me more whenever they see me doing the same actions as my girlfriend at our local temple (burn incense, "pray" to some statue, etc...). --- [0]: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

Psyladine 7y ago
>The interactions matter more than the nature of the units. Studying individual ants will never (one can safely say never for most such situations), never give us an idea on how the ant colony operates. For that, one needs to understand an ant colony as an ant colony, no less, no more, not a collection of ants. This is called an “emergent” property of the whole, by which parts and whole differ because what matters is the interactions between such parts. And interactions can obey very simple rules. I wish Taleb would give more on identifying & learning on a systems wide approach. For abstractions and "less than obvious" spheres this becomes difficult to separate the forest from the tree, or is the forest the system, or the genera of the plant in question, or its bordering systems, etc... behaviors and patterns which are emergent only at the individual level make '10,000 foot views' harder to perceive, let alone examine and extrapolate from "obey very simple rules"
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  I really appreciate Taleb's ideas in general, but this one strikes me as emotionally-driven, vastly more "intuitive" than substantiated. It's a like a world chess master or NBA player telling others "play better!" — what Taleb means here, imho, is that too many scientists fail to propose models that fits his mathematical perception, his world view, but if it were that simple, he'd have a book called "system thinking". He touches a lot on how he views things, so you can infer a lot of his mental framework from reading e.g. the Black Swan or Antifragile — both great in their own respect. But simple rules on this topic, that would/will be groundbreaking. I honestly pride myself as a "transdisciplinary" mind (which comes with a lot of "imposter-of-all-trades" syndrom, but meh, it's also humbling to realize the path to knowledge may not be the most rewarding short-term path). Taleb is one of those relatively "wide" minds, he's able to speak with substance on a lot of domains, but like many abstract thinkers I think he displays a lot of the casualness towards the difficulty of actual implementation. It's great to talk about systems but the reality is often about refactoring horrible codebases and if it works you'd rather spend more money on the actual mission that making things and concepts prettier. Even, especially at the edge. My 2 cts obviously. TL;DR, I wouldn't look much into it. It's one of those things we only hear because who says it is famous, not because there's so much velocity to the idea.