C. Wright Mills delineates a rough definition of "sociological imagination" which could be thought of as a framework within tools for thought: 1. Combinatorial creativity<br /> 2. Diffuse thinking, flâneur<br /> 3. Changing perspective (how would x see this?) Writing dialogues is a useful method to accomplish this. (He doesn't state it, but acting as a devil's advocate is a useful technique here as well.)<br /> 4. Collecting and lay out all the multiple viewpoints and arguments on a topic. (This might presume the method of devil's advocate I mentioned above 😀)<br /> 5. Play and exploration with words and terms<br /> 6. Watching levels of generality and breaking things down into smaller constituent parts or building blocks. (This also might benefit of abstracting ideas from one space to another.)<br /> 7. Categorization or casting ideas into types 8. Cross-tabulating and creation of charts, tables, and diagrams or other visualizations 9. Comparative cases and examples - finding examples of an idea in other contexts and time settings for comparison and contrast 10. Extreme types and opposites (or polar types) - coming up with the most extreme examples of comparative cases or opposites of one's idea. (cross reference: Compass Points https://hypothes.is/a/Di4hzvftEeyY9EOsxaOg7w and thinking routines). This includes creating dimensions of study on an object - what axes define it? What indices can one find data or statistics on? 11. Create historical depth - examples may be limited in number, so what might exist in the historical record to provide depth.

Johnson, Samuel Gregory Blane. ‘Dimensions of Altruism: Do Evaluations of Prosocial Behavior Track Social Good or Personal Sacrifice?’ Preprint. PsyArXiv, 22 August 2020. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/r85jv.

on ajoute parfois un troisième pan au triptyque des "savoirs" = les savoirs, le savoir-faire et le faire-savoir, qui rencontre un écho dans le graphique du chapitre suivant dans les trois dimensions du document. Les savoirs sont la dimension historique, le savoir-faire le juridique et enfin, et surtout, le faire-savoir, la dimension pédagogique

~32:00 What about the domain of the function being effectively lower dimensional, rather than a strongly regularity assumption? That would also work, right? Could this be the case for images? (what's the dimensionality of the manifold of natural images?)

Nice. I like the idea of regularity <> low dimensional representation. I guess by that general definition, the above is a form of regularity..

He comments about this on 38:30

Very cool!

How dimensions are organized...

This argument reminds me of Miegakure, a four-dimensional game I can't understand but enjoy trying to.