4 ms·

I love this, but I also feel they're valorizing the high resolution simply because it's their particular interest. In some fields, what they are speaking about

by patcon 3y ago

I love this, but I also feel they're valorizing the high resolution simply because it's their particular interest. In some fields, what they are speaking about is called "fine-graining". Looking up at the bigger picture is called "coarse-graining". Moving up and down between the levels, and bringing learnings between levels, that's where the work is. No one place of focus is better, as each environment can always change. Attention exists to hopefully guide us to the right level. I'd say we're not "built for high-res", because it's the moving between that keeps our attention from getting stuck at one specific level of abstraction :) There's a great quote by supreme court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that feel related to the crux of this stuff: > For the simplicity that lies this side of complexity, I would not give a fig, but for the simplicity that lies on the other side of complexity, I would give my life. The "simplicity on the other side of complexity" is the coarse-grained explanation, the abstraction, that has done the complex consideration to collapse the appropriate aspects. We only need to fine-grain our attention to understand that appropriate reduction for the given situation we're trying to grok. But the low-res is no less noble than the high-res, so long as you or someone else has done the hard work of finding the right abstraction... :)

starfallg 3y ago
I don't think the article is valorising the detail view at all, only to highlight the lack of appreciation and neglect of the ability to move down the layers as opposed to moving up. Higher level abstractions tend to be not grounded. When we operate on abstractions, we also tend to move up and lose the capability to execute on the lower layers. It results in a lot of inefficiencies and presents new failure scenarios.
- patcon 3y ago
  It sounds like we perhaps agree on most of the important things. I'm with you on new failures at each level of focus. Again, moving between feels the value. Any specific level will have failures, and only spreading attention across all levels can helps us hit a minimum -- probably never zero, because then we'd be gods in the territory :)
verisimi 3y ago
The map is not the terrain. Any map, coarse grained or fine grained has its place, they maybe be useful. But neither are actually the terrain. Even software models aren't the real thing.
- coxmi 3y ago
  This is a great hacker news meme, but a map is still obviously useful. To analyse the map, its author and its purpose, is just as useful as getting into the weeds and understanding the terrain. What use would knowing the terrain be if you can’t share your mental model of it with someone else?
  - kybernetikos 3y ago
    I'd go further. If you think you understand the terrain in itself, all you've really done is make a more detailed map. You can ask the terrain questions, but you can never understand it or predict it or do anything useful with it except by making a map. "The map is not the terrain" is useful if you're in danger of throwing away evidence that challenges your favourite model, in all other cases it distracts attention from the fact that building models is essential and important.
    - BlueTemplar 3y ago
      Yeah, but then it's like «All models are wrong, some are useful.» that already presupposes that you are aware of that models are unavoidable ?
  - taeric 3y ago
    This runs the danger of mistaking a map for a mental model. Which, for some of us, I bet that is the case. For others? I don't know. Note that this is emphatically not saying to abandon maps. I'm pushing more for having things in addition. And if you really want to build a shared mental model, you almost certainly have to share an experience. You can use narratives to help build a shared experience, but often you have to practice/rehearse anything that you want to have a truly shared model of.
turtledragonfly 3y ago
Your Holmes quote strikes a chord with a concept that I've had internally for a while: "bottom-up" vs "top-down" learning. I'm more of a "bottom-up" learner myself — I like to immerse myself in the details and then over time build an idea of how things work from that. But it's common to teach subjects in a more top-down way, especially in academic settings. You're told the big conclusions first, then maybe if you have time, get into the details of why. Perhaps in the homework assignments. There are pros and cons to each, but I do have a soft spot for the hard-won high-level conclusions that are distilled from complexity rather than being taken for granted. It gives a more satisfying and thorough understanding of things, though at the expense of much time and effort. I feel like Holmes' "this side" or "that side" of complexity refers to going through that effort.

by patcon 3y ago

starfallg 3y ago

I don't think the article is valorising the detail view at all, only to highlight the lack of appreciation and neglect of the ability to move down the layers as opposed to moving up. Higher level abstractions tend to be not grounded. When we operate on abstractions, we also tend to move up and lose the capability to execute on the lower layers. It results in a lot of inefficiencies and presents new failure scenarios.

patcon 3y ago
It sounds like we perhaps agree on most of the important things. I'm with you on new failures at each level of focus. Again, moving between feels the value. Any specific level will have failures, and only spreading attention across all levels can helps us hit a minimum -- probably never zero, because then we'd be gods in the territory :)

verisimi 3y ago

The map is not the terrain. Any map, coarse grained or fine grained has its place, they maybe be useful. But neither are actually the terrain. Even software models aren't the real thing.

coxmi 3y ago
This is a great hacker news meme, but a map is still obviously useful. To analyse the map, its author and its purpose, is just as useful as getting into the weeds and understanding the terrain. What use would knowing the terrain be if you can’t share your mental model of it with someone else?
- kybernetikos 3y ago
  I'd go further. If you think you understand the terrain in itself, all you've really done is make a more detailed map. You can ask the terrain questions, but you can never understand it or predict it or do anything useful with it except by making a map. "The map is not the terrain" is useful if you're in danger of throwing away evidence that challenges your favourite model, in all other cases it distracts attention from the fact that building models is essential and important.
  - BlueTemplar 3y ago
    Yeah, but then it's like «All models are wrong, some are useful.» that already presupposes that you are aware of that models are unavoidable ?
- taeric 3y ago
  This runs the danger of mistaking a map for a mental model. Which, for some of us, I bet that is the case. For others? I don't know. Note that this is emphatically not saying to abandon maps. I'm pushing more for having things in addition. And if you really want to build a shared mental model, you almost certainly have to share an experience. You can use narratives to help build a shared experience, but often you have to practice/rehearse anything that you want to have a truly shared model of.

turtledragonfly 3y ago

Your Holmes quote strikes a chord with a concept that I've had internally for a while: "bottom-up" vs "top-down" learning. I'm more of a "bottom-up" learner myself — I like to immerse myself in the details and then over time build an idea of how things work from that. But it's common to teach subjects in a more top-down way, especially in academic settings. You're told the big conclusions first, then maybe if you have time, get into the details of why. Perhaps in the homework assignments. There are pros and cons to each, but I do have a soft spot for the hard-won high-level conclusions that are distilled from complexity rather than being taken for granted. It gives a more satisfying and thorough understanding of things, though at the expense of much time and effort. I feel like Holmes' "this side" or "that side" of complexity refers to going through that effort.