Source: Original Site Post

  Now, in order for each of us to create commensurability between ideas we tend to specialize in one of the grammars, and pull from other grammars as necessary. Myself I learned history first, physics and math second, algorithms third, and economics fourth. My understanding of psychology was produced by indoctrination into the “Predictive Index” which is somewhere above MBTI and below Big Five and the Minnesota Multiphasic (MMPI). So I have been thinking in ‘incentives’ (not types) for the entirety of my adult life. Economics is just an extension of thinking in incentives. Praxeological thinking an operationalization of incentives. And operationalism the use of human scale commensurability. And when combined with algorithms and the study of artificial intelligence – not neural networks, but probabilistic decision trees (similar to Taleb’s work in finance), this continued the process by which I was able to insulate my thought (deflate) emotions and incentives. Most people fall into one of the grammars and we think of this as a ‘way of thinking’. So you find people that choose frameworks from the occult, to the supernatural (theological), literary-rational (think continental philosophy), to the literary, to the moral, to the historical, to the empirical (think skeptical), to the legal to the scientific. And to different pionts in between. Some people have less organized minds and pick and choose from each as alnalogies or facts, but cannot make arguments except by contrasting such randome picks. These people rely upon “ordinary language grammar” Other people develop frameworks of argument and understanding and at this point they then do specilize in one of the grammars because otherwise they cannot find commensurability. Others hyper-specialize and reframe everything into one of the grammars. So you find scientists(aristotelians), rationalists(socratics), literary-ists(Platonists), and theologians (Saulists and Augustinians and muslims), and every variation thereof. What I have done is hyperspecialize operational grammar, because it produces commensurability across ALL THE GRAMMARS. And this is the whole point: commensurability.

  Now, in order for each of us to create commensurability between ideas we tend to specialize in one of the grammars, and pull from other grammars as necessary. Myself I learned history first, physics and math second, algorithms third, and economics fourth. My understanding of psychology was produced by indoctrination into the “Predictive Index” which is somewhere above MBTI and below Big Five and the Minnesota Multiphasic (MMPI). So I have been thinking in ‘incentives’ (not types) for the entirety of my adult life. Economics is just an extension of thinking in incentives. Praxeological thinking an operationalization of incentives. And operationalism the use of human scale commensurability. And when combined with algorithms and the study of artificial intelligence – not neural networks, but probabilistic decision trees (similar to Taleb’s work in finance), this continued the process by which I was able to insulate my thought (deflate) emotions and incentives. Most people fall into one of the grammars and we think of this as a ‘way of thinking’. So you find people that choose frameworks from the occult, to the supernatural (theological), literary-rational (think continental philosophy), to the literary, to the moral, to the historical, to the empirical (think skeptical), to the legal to the scientific. And to different pionts in between. Some people have less organized minds and pick and choose from each as alnalogies or facts, but cannot make arguments except by contrasting such randome picks. These people rely upon “ordinary language grammar” Other people develop frameworks of argument and understanding and at this point they then do specilize in one of the grammars because otherwise they cannot find commensurability. Others hyper-specialize and reframe everything into one of the grammars. So you find scientists(aristotelians), rationalists(socratics), literary-ists(Platonists), and theologians (Saulists and Augustinians and muslims), and every variation thereof. What I have done is hyperspecialize operational grammar, because it produces commensurability across ALL THE GRAMMARS. And this is the whole point: commensurability.