| |
If I wait for this to be perfect, I will never post it. Please forgive the (hopefully temporarily) unorganized nature of my writing and thinking. I hope to put on this page some ideas that can link together in interesting ways, and I hope to continue to add ideas and organize my thoughts as the semester goes along. Please feel free to add ideas that you also find helpful, useful, or funny. |
| | To take a random example, when you’re searching for a job the more opportunities you’ve had, the more opportunities you’re given, even though you usually learn most of what you need to know on the job anyway… |
|
<
< | But the point is that if you have demonstrated your usefulness in some way, society will give you things that make it easier to increase your usefulness… |
>
> | But the point is that if you have demonstrated your usefulness in some way, society will give you things that make it easier to increase your usefulness…...why should anyone invest resources in things that haven't been shown to work?
(Some might argue that people are like seeds, and they have enormous potential that we're basically wasting by having winners and losers in society...) |
| | Rich people have the luxury of making decisions that will benefit them in the long run, whereas poor people often have to sacrifice the long run just to survive in the present… |
| | But just because this seems to be the way things are, doesn’t necessarily mean inequality is inevitable and the situation hopeless… |
|
<
< | You could make an analogous argument to the one Jeffrey Sachs makes in the End of Poverty: There is some threshold level of wellbeing at which people can be in generative rather than degenerative spirals. If rich people can aggressively create conditions such that that level of wellbeing is met for poorer nations, then those nations might be able to lift themselves out of poverty... |
>
> | You could make an analogous argument to the one Jeffrey Sachs makes in the End of Poverty: There is some threshold level of wellbeing at which people can be in generative rather than degenerative spirals. If rich people can aggressively create conditions such that that level of wellbeing is met for poorer people, then those people might be able to lift themselves out of poverty... |
| | We have failed, as a society, to increase the level of wellbeing of those at the bottom, thus creating a death spiral of anger and poverty that threatens to consume our “representative democracy”…Save us, Oh Bama! (I don’t mean that in an entirely sarcastic way, I love this man) |
| | Zero Marginal Cost |
|
<
< | This is itself interesting when you consider Moglen’s statement that he lives in a world of zero-marginal cost, where money has been replaced with information flows…that could mean a lot of things, but that’s one possible thing. |
>
> | This is itself interesting when you consider Eben’s statement that he lives in a world of zero-marginal cost, where money has been replaced with information flows…that could mean a lot of things, but that’s one possible thing. |
| | Synthesis: Ideas can be thought of as tools, capital, and power. We can combine and and rearrange ideas/tools to build other, better tools. The relationships between ideas make them that much more powerful… |
|
<
< | (I think) what Moglen is trying to do is trying to get us to collaboratively synthesize ideas...if we start the process now, then maybe at some point we would have enough ideas that we wouldn’t have to play the game “the establishment” incentivizes us to play… |
>
> | (I think) what Eben is trying to do is trying to get us to collaboratively synthesize ideas...if we start the process now, then maybe at some point we would have enough ideas that we wouldn’t have to play the game “the establishment” incentivizes us to play… |
| | Ideas can be copied and synthesized cheaply…free hammers for everyone! I can give you my ideas for cheap, which creates positive sum gains... |
| | Ownership class…do they also own the ideas? I would love to hear Eben talk about intellectual property... |
|
<
< | The rate at which scientific knowledge is being generated is astounding…and if knowledge entails adaptation, then things should be changing pretty quickly… |
>
> | The rate at which scientific information is being generated is astounding…and if information entails adaptation, then things should be changing pretty quickly…
The problem is that much of this information is too disorganized to be useful... |
| | Just because rationalization within the law gives a false sense of certainty (when what you really have is internal coherence... “analytic truths” are themselves just tools)
Capitalism
FA Hayek: Communism with a central planner fails because the planner can't adapt quickly enough to new information, information aggregation in the form of prices allow markets to adapt more quickly to change…whereas the structure of the current system doesn’t adapt quickly at all… |
|
<
< | I’d like to make an analogy between Hayek’s argument against centrally planned economies, and the current educational system. Again, maybe the educational system is failing for the same reason communism failed: a “central planner” can’t adapt quickly enough to new information, and it cuts off a lot of people’s potential… in the process... |
>
> | I’d like to make an analogy between Hayek’s argument against centrally planned economies, and the current educational system. Again, maybe the educational system is failing for one of the same reasons communism failed: a “central planner” can’t adapt quickly enough to new information, and it cuts off a lot of people’s potential… in the process... |
| | Pain also creates needs... |
| | (2) Potentially unsatisfying |
|
<
< | (3) Moglen’s career could offer more variety, whereas most careers require specialization for the sake of “efficiency”…our brains are highly adaptive generalists |
>
> | (3) Eben’s career could offer more variety, whereas most careers require specialization for the sake of “efficiency”…our brains are highly adaptive generalists |
| | (4) It’s possible that we can be happy with what we've been given |
| | Why don't we give kids access to more powerful ideas when they are younger and more plastic…otherwise, aren't we just wasting their time? |
|
>
> | Your time is much more valuable when you're younger, because the habits and ideas you acquire now will benefit you for the rest of your life...sort of like compound interest over time...
The point is that kids' time is disgustingly valuable, their brains are incredibly plastic, and the fact that our educational system wastes so much of their time and potential is a travesty of epic proportions. |
| | Brains are too complex to “educate” through force and coercion… Learning by doing is much more effective...we all know that taking lots of practice tests helps to consolidate and organize information in our heads...but teachers don't like to give practice tests or give much feedback... |
|
>
> | Not to mention, the world is too complicated to |
| | Embodied cognition…
Pranav Mistry |
| | http://www.physorg.com/news178978326.html |
|
<
< | Walking grows brains You mean increasing blood and oxygen flow to our brains can make us smarter?! Oxygen, which we can’t live without for more than a few minutes, is good for our brains? You mean that all but eliminating the basic form of transportation we’ve had for millions of years could have a detrimental effect on a "representative democracy"? |
>
> | Walking grows brains You mean increasing blood and oxygen flow to our brains can make us smarter?! Oxygen, which we can’t live without for more than a few minutes, is good for our brains? You mean that all but eliminating the basic form of transportation we’ve had for thousands of years could have a detrimental effect on a "representative democracy"? |
| | The biological level and the political level: are kids smarter, happier, more self-aware at the end of every day? Or simply more “educated”?
Is the current educational system good only because it's better than watching TV all day? (Incidentally, what needs does TV fulfill? Why do sad people watch so much TV?) |
|
<
< | "Signalling model" of education...peacocks versus organic growth models...you can't rush organic growth |
>
> | "Signalling model" of education versus organic growth models...you can't rush organic growth... |
| | |
|
<
< | Fear, risk, uncertainty...body language...ventromedial prefrontal cortex...what Moglen means by courage... |
>
> | Fear, risk, uncertainty...body language...ventromedial prefrontal cortex...what Eben means by courage... |
| | How can we create conditions that allow kids to become emotionally healthy, content, caring, and "other-centered" adults (as opposed to unhappy, self-centered adults) |
| | Complex, adaptive systems |
|
<
< | The educational system has to be far more adaptive…Hochman said he went through the system and felt like he knew nothing…on the one hand, that’s excellent, given the insane complexity of it all... |
>
> | The educational system has to be far more adaptive…Hochman said he went through the educational system and felt like he knew nothing…on the one hand, that’s excellent...given the insane complexity of it all, even the "smartest" people ever know almost nothing compared to what's out there... |
| | |
|
<
< | With all our talk of formal systems, you can never design a perfect educational system...it would break down at some point. Which is why we shouldn’t be aiming for perfect but consistently better. The most beautiful and effective systems have some sort of adaptive/self-corrective mechanism/failsafe... scientific experiments (often, I know this is simplistic) have to be repeatable and peer reviewed…the change has to be built into the system, because once it is in place, it becomes institutionalized, rigid, and formal…but all formal systems fail, because they can’t capture all of the available information…If the system can’t adapt itself prospectively, the system will be forced to adapt/break down through “exogenous” circumstances… |
>
> | With all our talk of formal systems, you can never design a perfect educational system...it would break down at some point. Which is why we shouldn’t be aiming for perfect but rather a system that improves consistently. The most beautiful and effective systems have some sort of adaptive/self-corrective mechanism/failsafe... scientific experiments (often, I know this is simplistic) have to be repeatable and peer reviewed…the change has to be built into the system, because once it is in place, it becomes institutionalized, rigid, and formal…but all formal systems fail, because they can’t capture all of the available information…If the system can’t adapt itself prospectively, the system will be forced to adapt/break down through “exogenous” circumstances… |
| | |
|
<
< | Federalism is to a large extent, not serving its purpose…large complex systems are unstable…the way you govern an empire is to divide and conquer, so disturbances can be contained in their respective regions… It takes too long to steer a large ship...especially when that ship is a "representative democracy." |
>
> | Federalism is to a large extent, not serving its purpose…large complex systems are unstable…the way you govern an empire is to divide and conquer, so disturbances can be contained in their respective regions… It takes too long to steer a large ship...especially when that ship is a "representative democracy"... |
| | (I think) Eben mentioned something to the effect that the problems of today/tomorrow require systems engineers…not legislators who prefer to work within the current system
|