In rhollerith's story (if I am modelling him correctly) it would be you who was defecting by not answering the questions he had already asked. His mistake was that by social convention it is usually ok to ignore an adversary's questions, especially if witnesses aren't paying close attention.
No, the mistake was that I wasn't actually interested in convincing him (or anyone) of anything - I was only trying to use the thread to collect ideas.
No, the mistake was that I wasn't actually interested in convincing him (or anyone) of anything - I was only trying to use the thread to collect ideas.
When I speak of rhollerith's mistake I speak of the deviation of his actions from an optimal path for achieving his goals. In this case particularly with respect to social goals. I didn't speak of where he violated your expectations or preferences be they professed or actual (or both). Having an accurate model of you would be relatively insignificant (and entirely redundant) when it came to predicting how...
Recently, I've collapsed (ascended?) down/up a meta-learning death spiral -- doing a lot less of reading actual informative content, than figuring out how to manage and acquire such content (as well as completely ignoring the antidote). In other words, I've been taking notes on taking notes. And now, I'm looking for your notes on notes for notes.
What kind of scientific knowledge, techniques, and resources do we have right now in the way of information management? How would one efficiently extract useful information possible out of a single pass of the source? The second pass?
The answers may depend on the media, and the media might not be readily apparent. Example: Edward Boyden, Assistant Professor at the MIT Media Lab, recommends recording in a notebook every conversation you ever have with other people. And how do you prepare yourself for the serendipity of a walk downtown? I know I'm more likely to regret not having a notebook on hand than spending the time to bring one along.
I'll conglomerate what I remember seeing on the N-Back Mailing List and in general: I sincerely apologize for my lack of citation.
Notes
(I've also heard a handful of individuals claim that SRS has helped them "internalize" certain behaviors, or maybe patterns of thought, like Non-Violent Comunication or Bayes Theorem... any takers on this?)