STARBUCKS EXCLUDES THE ADL FROM SENSITIVITY EDUCATION
(oh, the irony)
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/30/starbucks-adl-black-jewish-activists-511390
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 23:13:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991093283727298560
I don’t publish these private messages, but I get them every day, and they are the most fulfilling part of my life.
—“Hello Curt. As I’ve never written you before and believe there’s something that must be said I just will. Thank you for putting your work out there for the public. I think you are doing a great contribution to science as a method as well as how it’s understood. Peterson is doing a lot of good helping people believe in themselves, but I admire your tenacity and commitment to getting to the truth of it all. Cheers.”—
Love you all brothers and sisters.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-29 15:48:00 UTC
RT @DegenRolf: The more female classmates women had in high school, the less likely they became to enter STEM fields. https://t.co/OBqrI7ZF…
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-27 19:37:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989951612415348738
Retweeted Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf):
The more female classmates women had in high school, the less likely they became to enter STEM fields. https://t.co/OBqrI7ZFcy https://t.co/yZysdSPDFE
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-27 15:37:00 UTC
THERE ISN’T ANY SHORTCUT TO WISDOM There isn’t any shortcut. You are either going to read enough basic history, and then learn the operational deconstruction of incentives from me, or you aren’t. There isn’t any shortcut. There isn’t one book. There is however a series of books that are the minimum you’ll need. But that’s not easy. My book will teach you the science and logic of natural law, and all that it entails. But it will simply explain how to make all the knowledge of all the disciplines, commensurable – into a single universal language. That said, history provides the storytelling. And it’s the stories we remember. Stories serve as search algorithms. Logic serves as recipes.Science insures we don’t err. We have had enough of us working to gether now that very smart people with a scientific education and knowledge of computer science, and a bit of history can grasp the ideas within a year. For most people it takes two to understand, and another one or two to master the use of. Which is like any other STEM discipline. ‘Cause it’s like any other STEM discipline….. —“You’ve made a comment elsewhere which I’ll try to paraphrase. Once you get the importance to operationalism, obstacles to demonstrated intelligence are removed. From there, the way forward is just by acquiring more knowledge. There is no way around it. If you don’t have the data (information), operational arguments amount to well articulated opinions and nothing more.”— Bill Joslin
THERE ISN’T ANY SHORTCUT TO WISDOM There isn’t any shortcut. You are either going to read enough basic history, and then learn the operational deconstruction of incentives from me, or you aren’t. There isn’t any shortcut. There isn’t one book. There is however a series of books that are the minimum you’ll need. But that’s not easy. My book will teach you the science and logic of natural law, and all that it entails. But it will simply explain how to make all the knowledge of all the disciplines, commensurable – into a single universal language. That said, history provides the storytelling. And it’s the stories we remember. Stories serve as search algorithms. Logic serves as recipes.Science insures we don’t err. We have had enough of us working to gether now that very smart people with a scientific education and knowledge of computer science, and a bit of history can grasp the ideas within a year. For most people it takes two to understand, and another one or two to master the use of. Which is like any other STEM discipline. ‘Cause it’s like any other STEM discipline….. —“You’ve made a comment elsewhere which I’ll try to paraphrase. Once you get the importance to operationalism, obstacles to demonstrated intelligence are removed. From there, the way forward is just by acquiring more knowledge. There is no way around it. If you don’t have the data (information), operational arguments amount to well articulated opinions and nothing more.”— Bill Joslin
EDUCATION. via Nassim Nicholas Taleb (NNT) Distilling the conversation with @bryan_caplan hosted by Tyler Cowen 1) There has been a traditional separation between: + “liberal education” for free men, (liber), who didn’t work for a living, & +”technical education”, for those who labor. 2) For instance, mathematics as taught for “liberal” education, was theoretical mind exercise. Euclid’s theorem was never used in building. Meanwhile builders (parts of guilds with trade secrets) were using their own heuristic, richer, geometry. (see #Antifragile) 3) The Anglo-Saxon world conflated the two, with aristocrat-envy: + Education to be civilized. (Literature, philosophy, poetry, abstract math, history, stamp collecting, etc.) + Education to learn to do things. (Engineering, medicine, accounting, law, belly dancing, plumbing) 4) So we need to separate “things to learn to be civilized” and “things you learn to do things” with separate institutions. The only overlap I could find was mathematics, though not a strong argument since applied math is a v. different animal. 5a) The problem of the peer review system is selecting professors on theories abt subject never checked for basic knowledge of subject. It is common for people to know the “post colonial gender theory” of Levant, teach it, but never the actual facts. 5b) The French solved the problem with knowledge exams for educators (“aggregation”); you never end up having people judged solely by peers (See #SkininTheGame ). 6) The educational model is now imploding as the only thing people seem to learn at colleges is ideology by losers who became professors because they aren’t good enough to create things & got together to BS in a citation ring #RentSeekers (not just in economics, but everywhere) 7) Finally, we can split education: + Taught by nonskininthegame people (math, poetry, etc.) + Taught by skininthegame people (engineering, medicine, belly dancing, plumbing, finance, law, burglarizing, computer “science”, accounting, …) In SEPARATE institutions. 8) The idea that liberal education makes free thinkers is about the greatest myth: empirically, liberal education creates the exact opposite of “thinkers” and “free”: indoctrinated and slaves.Nassim Nicholas Taleb added, Patrick Lee Miller 9) Remember that the “University” system for this “liberal education” (trivium/quadrivium) was historically closely associated with, and supervised by, the Church. Technical education was left to free thinkers. 10 In #Antifragile I document the confusion Business =>Technology => Science, far far far far more frequent than the reverse. Problem is that academic, not practitioners, write the books.
EDUCATION. via Nassim Nicholas Taleb (NNT) Distilling the conversation with @bryan_caplan hosted by Tyler Cowen 1) There has been a traditional separation between: + “liberal education” for free men, (liber), who didn’t work for a living, & +”technical education”, for those who labor. 2) For instance, mathematics as taught for “liberal” education, was theoretical mind exercise. Euclid’s theorem was never used in building. Meanwhile builders (parts of guilds with trade secrets) were using their own heuristic, richer, geometry. (see #Antifragile) 3) The Anglo-Saxon world conflated the two, with aristocrat-envy: + Education to be civilized. (Literature, philosophy, poetry, abstract math, history, stamp collecting, etc.) + Education to learn to do things. (Engineering, medicine, accounting, law, belly dancing, plumbing) 4) So we need to separate “things to learn to be civilized” and “things you learn to do things” with separate institutions. The only overlap I could find was mathematics, though not a strong argument since applied math is a v. different animal. 5a) The problem of the peer review system is selecting professors on theories abt subject never checked for basic knowledge of subject. It is common for people to know the “post colonial gender theory” of Levant, teach it, but never the actual facts. 5b) The French solved the problem with knowledge exams for educators (“aggregation”); you never end up having people judged solely by peers (See #SkininTheGame ). 6) The educational model is now imploding as the only thing people seem to learn at colleges is ideology by losers who became professors because they aren’t good enough to create things & got together to BS in a citation ring #RentSeekers (not just in economics, but everywhere) 7) Finally, we can split education: + Taught by nonskininthegame people (math, poetry, etc.) + Taught by skininthegame people (engineering, medicine, belly dancing, plumbing, finance, law, burglarizing, computer “science”, accounting, …) In SEPARATE institutions. 8) The idea that liberal education makes free thinkers is about the greatest myth: empirically, liberal education creates the exact opposite of “thinkers” and “free”: indoctrinated and slaves.Nassim Nicholas Taleb added, Patrick Lee Miller 9) Remember that the “University” system for this “liberal education” (trivium/quadrivium) was historically closely associated with, and supervised by, the Church. Technical education was left to free thinkers. 10 In #Antifragile I document the confusion Business =>Technology => Science, far far far far more frequent than the reverse. Problem is that academic, not practitioners, write the books.
–“DO SMART PEOPLE LACK COMMON SENSE?”– Well, there are a couple of issues here we can discuss. 1) IQ increases the rate at which you learn, and the degrees of indirection between what’s learned. 2) IQ is the most dominant personality trait, with industriousness second, and all others comparatively far less influential. 3) By and large, after the age of 22, we effectively sort by IQ. Or at least every 1/2 standard deviation (7 points). And it applies (generally) to all walks of life. 4) People with average IQ’s tend to collect information from peers. People with high IQ’s rely less on the opinions of others. 5) So average people network more and pursue less risky, or novel (innovative) ends, and smarter people do the opposite. 6) This is why science has been so important because as we have learned science and reduce errors, the ‘habits’ of scientific thought have been adopted by mainstream people and they ‘calculate’ together fairly successfully. 7) My point of view, is that together we create a sufficiently homogenous set of habits that we believe we understand far more than we do – (overconfidence) – when all we are doing is habituating norms that survived evolution and markets. 8) Roughly speaking, 140 innovates, 130 explains 120’s apply, 110’s organize, 100’s do, 90’s follow, 80s do the best they can and are generally angry about it, and 70s stumble through life despite the fact that no matter what they do it seems not to work. That’s an exaggeration, but it’s close enough that it serves as a general rule of understanding. We are just as specialized as ants, but the similarity of emotion, want, and language convinces us that we are more similar than we are. Hence why we generally choose every aspect of our lives so that we function with people within six degrees of separation.
–“DO SMART PEOPLE LACK COMMON SENSE?”– Well, there are a couple of issues here we can discuss. 1) IQ increases the rate at which you learn, and the degrees of indirection between what’s learned. 2) IQ is the most dominant personality trait, with industriousness second, and all others comparatively far less influential. 3) By and large, after the age of 22, we effectively sort by IQ. Or at least every 1/2 standard deviation (7 points). And it applies (generally) to all walks of life. 4) People with average IQ’s tend to collect information from peers. People with high IQ’s rely less on the opinions of others. 5) So average people network more and pursue less risky, or novel (innovative) ends, and smarter people do the opposite. 6) This is why science has been so important because as we have learned science and reduce errors, the ‘habits’ of scientific thought have been adopted by mainstream people and they ‘calculate’ together fairly successfully. 7) My point of view, is that together we create a sufficiently homogenous set of habits that we believe we understand far more than we do – (overconfidence) – when all we are doing is habituating norms that survived evolution and markets. 8) Roughly speaking, 140 innovates, 130 explains 120’s apply, 110’s organize, 100’s do, 90’s follow, 80s do the best they can and are generally angry about it, and 70s stumble through life despite the fact that no matter what they do it seems not to work. That’s an exaggeration, but it’s close enough that it serves as a general rule of understanding. We are just as specialized as ants, but the similarity of emotion, want, and language convinces us that we are more similar than we are. Hence why we generally choose every aspect of our lives so that we function with people within six degrees of separation.