Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

@WerrellBradley
(I told you I didn’t think he was a nitwit, but that I’d just have to run a test. It’s just very hard to find common means of communication without convincing the other party you’re not an idiot either. Social media is full of idiots. And yes, I know you all tease me for this, but like I said, I learn from these experiments, so as long as I see a glimmer of hope I’m willing to give it a try.
I remember this wonderful movie back in the 70s (it was delayed a few years but should have come out earlier) called Collossus the Forbin project, where two supercomputers, US and Soviet have to construct a language so that they can communicate. They learn, and we learn, that communication requires trust in order to sufficiently invest in understanding the other party.
Most of the time, reasonably intelligent and intellectually honest people simply lack cross-domain knowledge necessary to generalize concepts from their chosen domain of expertise across domains – which is, as you know one of our complaints about the present academy’s siloing.
There are very few people that are competent in as many fields as I am, and our team is very good at universal commensurability, but its still hard to communicate with people who don’t have the background in these matters – and there are too few who do. -Cheers. )

Reply addressees: @Ket_Math_Dad @EricMorganCoach @Viorp2 @WerrellBradley @AntonyArakkal1 @Sargon_of_Akkad

It’s hardly likely that Eric errs. It’s more likely that Eric isn’t able to figure out a frame that both of you can understand (a protocol) such that he can help you grasp what he’s saying. It might be because we are discussing dimensional limits in supply and demand from… https://t.co/oE0BFEdCeO