622 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. variability amongst males

      Does it need to be a mate-related thing? Why not an environmental one. I seem to recall that external temperature had a marked effect on the sexual selection within alligator populations such that a several degree change during gestation would swing the sex proportion one way or another. Could these effects of environment have caused a greater variability?

      Further, what other factors may be at play? What about in sea horse populations where males carry the young? Does this make a difference?

    2. Our prehistoric ancestors were not doing higher mathematics, so we would need to think of some way that being on the spectrum could have caused a man at that time to become highly attractive to women.

      One needs to remember that it isn't always the men that themselves need to propagate the genes directly (ie, they don't mate with someone to hand their genes down to their progeny directly). Perhaps a man on the autism spectrum, while not necessarily attractive himself, has traits which improve the lives and fitness of the offspring of his sister's children? Then it's not his specific genes which are passed on as a result, but those of his sister's which have a proportion of his genes since they both share their parent's genes in common.

  2. Sep 2018
    1. Then, venturing further into the store: this is what we happen to have.

      I'm also reminded here of the idea of serendipity. Perhaps I go into a library looking for a specific topic and browse to that section via Dewey decimal. What about the serendipity of finding something interesting in that same section (or even nearby sections) that I wasn't specifically looking for?

      Google's search ranking rarely if ever unearths this sort of serendipitous material.

    1. One explanation has been that many of an animal's traits are not fixed, but can change during its lifetime. This "phenotypic plasticity" enables individual animals to alter their appearance or behavior enough to survive in a new environment. Eventually, new adaptations promoting survival arise in the population through genetic changes and natural selection, which acts on the population over generations. This is known as the "Baldwin effect" after the psychologist James Mark Baldwin, who presented the idea in a landmark paper published in 1896.
    1. I love the voice of their help page. Someone very opinionated (in a good way) is building this product. I particularly like this quote: Your data is a liability to us, not an asset.
    1. Not only is the notion that OER-sustainability is the responsibility of the end-user pragmatically unnecessary, it also places barriers to adoption that will inhibit rather than encourage future use.

      This is certainly true. It reminds me of the early historical growth of the Catholic church. Paul of Tarses came in and relaxed the dietary restrictions and the need for circumcision which effectively lowered the barrier for entry into the church. One needn't be a Jew to be a follower of Jesus; this helped early growth tremendously.

    1. 2011-06-23 at OSBridge2011 having lunch with Ward, Tantek exclaimed: The Read Write Web is no longer sufficient. I want the Read Fork Write Merge Web. #osb11 lunch table. #diso #indieweb

      This is what I want too!

    1. Github has taught a generation of programmers that copies are good, not bad, and as we noted, it’s copies that are essential to the Garden.
    2. But imagine a world where you write an article named Subsidies and Local Government in WordPress, and that pings a notifier that indexes that page. And immediately you are notified of all pages named this, and presented with a list of pages those pages link to.

      A great argument to add webmentions to wiki software!

    3. I know why textbook companies are closed. They want to make money.
    4. I’m shocked and amazed that we still struggle to find materials.

      Something about this sentence and its lead up reminds of this particularly great section of the Microformats wiki about why not email: http://microformats.org/wiki/wiki-better-than-email

    5. And we see that develop into the web as we know it today. A web of “hey this is cool” one-hop links. A web where where links are used to create a conversational trail (a sort of “read this if you want to understand what I am riffing on” link) instead of associations of ideas. The “conversational web”. A web obsessed with arguing points. A web seen as a tool for self-expression rather than a tool for thought. A web where you weld information and data into your arguments so that it can never be repurposed against you. The web not as a reconfigurable model of understanding but of sealed shut presentations.
    6. It really is the ultimate garden.

      I've long wanted to create my own personal wiki, and while reading this thus far have continued to think about it. Perhaps I need to just jump in and build one to supplement my stream-based commonplace book? I'll need to think about how to best dovetail the two together.

    7. A stunning thing that we forget, but the link here is not part of the author’s intent, but of the reader’s analysis. The majority of links in the memex are made by readers, not writers. On the world wide web of course, only an author gets to determine links.
    8. these abilities – to link, annotate, change, summarize, copy, and share — these are the verbs of gardening.
    9. So most people say this is the original vision of the web.

      I look it and say, it's just another version of the commonplace book!

    10. I’m going to assume most people in the room here have read Vannevar Bush’s 1945 essay As We May Think. If you haven’t read it yet, you need to.

      I seem to run across references to this every couple of months. Interestingly it is never in relation to information theory or Claude Shannon references which I somehow what I most closely relate it to.

    11. In many ways the Stream is best seen through the lens of Bakhtin’s idea of the utterance. Bakhtin saw the utterance, the conversational turn of speech, as inextricably tied to context. To understand a statement you must go back to things before, you must find out what it was replying to, you must know the person who wrote it and their speech context. To understand your statement I must reconstruct your entire stream.

      If the semantics are correct here, then Bakhtin may be the originator of the idea of context collapse.

    12. Rather than imagine a timeless world of connection and multiple paths, the Stream presents us with a single, time ordered path with our experience (and only our experience) at the center.
    13. The Stream is a newer metaphor with old roots.

      Mixed metaphor! Roots relate to gardens which are literally full of roots, but roots are out of place in streams.

    1. All tribes need tribal leaders, who in turn need loyalty. Followers of Corbyn and Trump will both detest the comparison, but note how both have the merch, the chants, the hagiography. They’re radically different, but both are products of the tribalism that social media has accidentally brought about.
    1. My relationship is a lot healthier with blogs that I visit when I please. This is another criticism I have with RSS as well—I don’t want my favorite music blog sending me updates every day, always in my face. I just want to go there when I am ready to listen to something new. (I also hope readers to my blog just stop by when they feel like obsessing over the Web with me.)

      Amen!

    1. “We found that 58% of teenagers said they had taken at least one break from at least one social media platform. The most common reason? It was getting in the way of schoolwork or jobs, with more than a third of respondents citing this as their primary reason for leaving social media. Other reasons included feeling tired of the conflict or drama they could see unfolding among their peer group online, and feeling oppressed too by the constant firehose of information.”
  3. Aug 2018
    1. IF WE ADMIT for the moment that the fascist and communist challenges to liberalism are dead, are there any other ideological competitors left? Or put another way, are there contradictions in liberal society beyond that of class that are not resolvable? Two possibilities suggest themselves, those of religion and nationalism.
    2. Perhaps this very prospect of centuries of boredom at the end of history will serve to get history started once again.

      Has it started again with nationalism, racism, and Trump?

    3. But whatever the particular ideological basis, every "developed" country believed in the acceptability of higher civilizations ruling lower ones
    4. This school in effect applies a Hobbesian view of politics to international relations, and assumes that aggression and insecurity are universal characteristics of human societies rather than the product of specific historical circumstances.
    5. At present, no more than 20 percent of its economy has been marketized, and most importantly it continues to be ruled by a self-appointed Communist party which has given no hint of wanting to devolve power.

      If Facebook were to continue to evolve at it's current rate and with it's potential power as well as political influence, I could see it attempting to work the way China does in a new political regime.

    6. Beginning with the famous third plenum of the Tenth Central Committee in 1978, the Chinese Communist party set about decollectivizing agriculture for the 800 million Chinese who still lived in the countryside. The role of the state in agriculture was reduced to that of a tax collector, while production of consumer goods was sharply increased in order to give peasants a taste of the universal homogenous state and thereby an incentive to work. The reform doubled Chinese grain output in only five years, and in the process created for Deng Xiaoping a solid political base from which he was able to extend the reform to other parts of the economy. Economic Statistics do not begin to describe the dynamism, initiative, and openness evident in China since the reform began.
    7. But those who believe that the future must inevitably be socialist tend to be very old, or very marginal to the real political discourse of their societies.

      and then there are the millennials...

    8. FAILURE to understand that the roots of economic behavior lie in the realm of consciousness and culture leads to the common mistake of attributing material causes to phenomena that are essentially ideal in nature.
    9. This is not to say that there are not rich people and poor people in the United States, or that the gap between them has not grown in recent years. But the root causes of economic inequality do not have to do with the underlying legal and social structure of our society, which remains fundamentally egalitarian and moderately redistributionist, so much as with the cultural and social characteristics of the groups that make it up, which are in turn the historical legacy of premodern conditions.
    10. After the war, it seemed to most people that German fascism as well as its other European and Asian variants were bound to self-destruct. There was no material reason why new fascist movements could not have sprung up again after the war in other locales, but for the fact that expansionist ultranationalism, with its promise of unending conflict leading to disastrous military defeat, had completely lost its appeal. The ruins of the Reich chancellery as well as the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed this ideology on the level of consciousness as well as materially, and all of the pro-fascist movements spawned by the German and Japanese examples like the Peronist movement in Argentina or Subhas Chandra Bose's Indian National Army withered after the war.

      And yet somehow we see these movements anew in America and around the world. What is the difference between then and now?

    11. anomie

      I feel like this word captures very well the exact era of Trumpian Republicanism in which we find ourselves living.

    12. For our purposes, it matters very little what strange thoughts occur to people in Albania or Burkina Faso, for we are interested in what one could in some sense call the common ideological heritage of mankind.

      While this seems solid on it's face, we don't know what the future landscape will look like. What if climate change brings about massive destruction of homo sapiens? We need to be careful about how and why we explore both the adjacent possible as well as the distant possible. One day we may need them and our current local maximum may not serve us well.

    13. Are there, in other words, any fundamental "contradictions" in human life that cannot be resolved in the context of modern liberalism, that would be resolvable by an alternative political-economic structure?

      Churchill famously said "...democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..."

      Even within this quote it is implicit that there are many others. In some sense he's admitting that we might possibly be at a local maximum but we've just not explored the spaces beyond the adjacent possible.

    14. But that state of consciousness that permits the growth of liberalism seems to stabilize in the way one would expect at the end of history if it is underwritten by the abundance of a modern free market economy.

      Writers spend an awful lot of time focused too carefully on the free market economy, but don't acknowledge a lot of the major benefits of the non-free market parts which are undertaken and executed often by governments and regulatory environments. (Hacker & Pierson, 2016)

    15. Hence it did not matter to Kojève that the consciousness of the postwar generation of Europeans had not been universalized throughout the world; if ideological development had in fact ended, the homogenous state would eventually become victorious throughout the material world.

      This presupposes that homeostasis could ever be achieved.

      One thinks of phrases like "The future is here, it just isn't evenly distributed." But everything we know about systems and evolving systems often indicates that homeostasis isn't necessarily a good thing. In many cases, it means eventual "death" instead of evolving towards a longer term lifespan. Again, here Kauffmann's ideas about co-evolving systems and evolving landscapes may provide some guidance. What if we're just at a temporary local maximum, but changes in the landscape modify that fact? What then? Shouldn't we be looking for other potential distant maxima as well?

    16. "Protestant" life of wealth and risk over the "Catholic" path of poverty and security.[8]

      Is this simply a restatement of the idea that most of "the interesting things" happen at the border or edge of chaos? The Catholic ethic is firmly inside the stable arena while that of the Protestant ethic is pushing the boundaries.

    17. In general, while I've been reading Stuart Kauffmann's At Home in the Universe, I can't help but thinking about the cascading extinctions he describes and wonder if political extinctions of ideas like Communism or other forms of government or even economies might follow the same types of outcomes described there?

    18. Weber notes that according to any economic theory that posited man as a rational profit-maximizer, raising the piece-work rate should increase labor productivity. But in fact, in many traditional peasant communities, raising the piece-work rate actually had the opposite effect of lowering labor productivity: at the higher rate, a peasant accustomed to earning two and one-half marks per day found he could earn the same amount by working less, and did so because he valued leisure more than income. The choices of leisure over income, or of the militaristic life of the Spartan hoplite over the wealth of the Athenian trader, or even the ascetic life of the early capitalist entrepreneur over that of a traditional leisured aristocrat, cannot possibly be explained by the impersonal working of material forces,

      Science could learn something from this. Science is too far focused on the idealized positive outcomes that it isn't paying attention to the negative outcomes and using that to better define its outline or overall shape. We need to define a scientific opportunity cost and apply it to the negative side of research to better understand and define what we're searching for.

      Of course, how can we define a new scientific method (or amend/extend it) to better take into account negative results--particularly in an age when so many results aren't even reproducible?

    19. But whether a highly productive modern industrial society chooses to spend 3 or 7 percent of its GNP on defense rather than consumption is entirely a matter of that society's political priorities, which are in turn determined in the realm of consciousness.

      It's not so much the percentage on produced defense goods, but how quickly could a society ramp up production of goods, services, and people to defend itself compared to the militaries of its potential aggressors.

      In particular, most of the effort should go to the innovation side of war materiel. The innovation of the atomic bomb is a particularly nice example in that as a result of conceptualizing and then executing on it it allowed the US to win the war in the Pacific and hasten the end of war in Europe. Even if we otherwise had massive stockpiles of people or other weapons, our enemies could potentially have equaled them and dragged the war on interminably. It was the unknown unknown via innovation that unseated Japan and could potentially do the same to us based on innovation coming out of almost any country in the modern age.

    20. Paul Kennedy's hugely successful The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, which ascribes the decline of great powers to simple economic overextension.

      Curious how this may relate to the more recent "The End of Power" by Moisés Naím. It doesn't escape one that the title of the book somewhat echoes the title of this particular essay.

    21. Believing that there was no more work for philosophers as well, since Hegel (correctly understood) had already achieved absolute knowledge, Kojève left teaching after the war and spent the remainder of his life working as a bureaucrat in the European Economic Community, until his death in 1968.

      This is depressing on so many levels.

    22. Hegel believed that history culminated in an absolute moment - a moment in which a final, rational form of society and state became victorious.

      and probably not a bad outcome in an earlier era that thought of things in terms of clockwork and lacked the ideas of quantum theory and its attendant uncertainties.

    23. What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.

      What if, in fact, we've only just found a local maximum? What if in the changing landscape there are other places we could potentially get to competitively that supply greater maxima? And possibly worse, what if we need to lose value to get from here to unlock even more value there?

    24. The triumph of the West, of the Western idea, is evident first of all in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism.

      Total exhaustion?

    1. Anomie (/ˈænəˌmi/) is a "condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals".[1] It is the breakdown of social bonds between an individual and the community, e.g., under unruly scenarios resulting in fragmentation of social identity and rejection of self-regulatory values.

      I can't help but see this definition and think it needs to be applied to economics immediately. In particular I can think of a few quick examples of economic anomie which are artificially covering up a free market and causing issues within individual communities.

      College Textbooks: Here publishers are marketing to professors who assign particular textbooks and subverting students which are the actual market and consumers of those textbooks. This causes an inflated market and has allowed textbook prices to spiral out of control.

      The American Health Care Market In this example, the health care providers (doctors, hospitals, etc.) have been segmented away from their consumers (patients) by intermediary insurance companies which are driving the market to their own good rather than a free-er set of smaller (and importantly local) markets that would be composed of just the sellers and the buyers. As a result, the consumer of health care has no ability to put a particular price on what they're receiving (and typically they rarely ever ask, even more so when they have insurance). This type of economic anomie is causing terrific havoc within the area.

      (Aside: while the majority of health care markets is very small in size (by distance), I will submit that the advent of medical tourism does a bit to widen potential markets, but this segment of the market is tiny and very privileged in comparison.)

    2. He believed that anomie is common when the surrounding society has undergone significant changes in its economic fortunes, whether for better or for worse and, more generally, when there is a significant discrepancy between the ideological theories and values commonly professed and what was actually achievable in everyday life. This was contrary to previous theories on suicide which generally maintained that suicide was precipitated by negative events in a person's life and their subsequent depression.

      Is this what America is experiencing in the midst of Donald J. Trump's new Republican party?

      I'm left wondering if there is a potential link to Jonah Goldberg having used the word Suicide specifically in the title of his recent book? Neither Durkheim nor anomie appear within the text however.

    1. For all their strengths, both books lack the earth and funk and complexity of dreaming, hurting human beings.
    2. People like to belong to things small enough to feel.
    3. Both books belong to one of today’s most important genres: the Not-About-Trump-But-Also-Sort-Of-About-Trump, or N.A.T.B.A.S.O.A.T., book.
    4. And both books help explain so much more than Trump. #MeToo. White nationalism. Hindu nationalism. Black Lives Matter. Campus debates about privilege and appropriation. Syria. Islamism. The spread of populism and retreat of democracy worldwide. The rise of the far right in Europe. The rise of the far left in the United States. All these phenomena throb with questions of identity, of “Who am I?” and “To what do I belong?”

      Perhaps not to what do I belong even, but one of the key questions I see over and over in many of these groups is: "Why do I have less than them? Why am I not considered equal? Why am I not treated the same?"

      Every kindergartner knows this intrinsically.

      To many articles focus on the name and identities of the movements and not enough on what it is that they really want.

    1. This speculative flourish recalled the famous question that John Stuart Mill said he asked himself as a young man: If all the political and social reforms you believe in came to pass, would it make you a happier human being? That is always an interesting question.
    2. I can't help but wonder what Jonah Goldberg's review of this book will be given his prior effort earlier this year?

      I'm also reminded here of Mark Granovetter's ideas that getting a job is more closely tied to who you know. One's job is often very closely tied to their identity, and even more so when the link that got them their job was through a friend or acquaintance.

    3. Liberalism remains the ideal political and economic system, but it needs to find ways to accommodate and neutralize this pesky desire for recognition.
    4. Enrollment was small, around twenty, but a number of future intellectual luminaries, like Hannah Arendt and Jacques Lacan, either took the class or sat in on it.
    5. History is somersaults all the way to the end. That’s why it’s so hard to write, and so hard to predict. Unless you’re lucky. ♦

      This is definitely more of a Big History approach...

    6. Wouldn’t it be important to distinguish people who ultimately don’t want differences to matter, like the people involved in #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, from people who ultimately do want them to matter, like ISIS militants, Brexit voters, or separatist nationalists? And what about people who are neither Mexican nor immigrants and who feel indignation at the treatment of Mexican immigrants? Black Americans risked their lives for civil rights, but so did white Americans. How would Socrates classify that behavior? Borrowed thymos?

      Some importatnt questions here. They give me some ideas...

    7. He wants to iron out differences, not protect them. He suggests measures like a mandatory national-service requirement and a more meaningful path to citizenship for immigrants.

      What if we look at the shrinking number of languages as a microcosm of identity. Are people forced to lose language? Do they not care? What are the other similarities and differences.

      Cross reference: https://boffosocko.com/2015/06/08/a-world-of-languages-and-how-many-speak-them-infographic/

    8. Fukuyama concedes that people need a sense of national identity, whether ethnic or creedal, but otherwise he remains an assimilationist and a universalist.

      Is it a "national" identity they need? Why not a cultural one, or a personal one? Why not all the identities? What about the broader idea of many publics? Recognition and identity touch on many of these publics for a variety of reasons.

    9. He has no interest in the solution that liberals typically adopt to accommodate diversity: pluralism and multiculturalism.

      Interesting to see an IndieWeb principle pop up here! How do other parts dovetail perhaps? What about other movements?

    10. Fukuyama acknowledges that identity politics has done some good, and he says that people on the right exaggerate the prevalence of political correctness and the effects of affirmative action.

      There's a reference to voting theory about people not voting their particular views, but that they're asking themselves, "Who would someone like me vote for?" Perhaps it's George Lakoff? I should look this up and tie it in here somewhere.

    11. In 1992, in the essay “The Politics of Recognition,” Taylor analyzed the advent of multiculturalism in terms similar to the ones Fukuyama uses in “Identity.”
    12. Encouraged by his friend Saul Bellow, he decided to turn the article into a book. “The Closing of the American Mind,” which Simon & Schuster brought out in February, 1987, launched a campaign of criticism of American higher education that has taken little time off since.
    13. Kojève’s lectures were published as “Introduction to the Reading of Hegel,” a book that went through many printings in France.

      Maybe it was Kojève and not Covfefe that Trump was referencing?! :P

    14. Kojève thought that the other way was through labor. The slave achieves his sense of self by work that transforms the natural world into a human world. But the slave is driven to labor in the first place because of the master’s refusal to recognize him. This “master-slave dialectic” is the motor of human history, and human history comes to an end when there are no more masters or slaves, and all are recognized equally.
    15. For Kojève, the key concept in Hegel’s “Phenomenology” was recognition. Human beings want the recognition of other human beings in order to become self-conscious—to know themselves as autonomous individuals.

      This is very reminiscent of Valerie Alexander's talk last week about recognizing employees at work. How can liberal democracy take advantage of this?

    16. Rationality and transparency are the values of classical liberalism. Rationality and transparency are supposed to be what make free markets and democratic elections work. People understand how the system functions, and that allows them to make rational choices.

      But economically, we know there isn't perfect knowledge or perfect rationality (see Tversky and Khaneman). There is rarely every perfect transparency either which makes things much harder, especially in a post-truth society apparenlty.

    17. To say, as Fukuyama does, that “the desire for status—megalothymia—is rooted in human biology” is the academic equivalent of palmistry. You’re just making it up.
    18. Fukuyama gives this desire for recognition a Greek name, taken from Plato’s Republic: thymos. He says that thymos is “a universal aspect of human nature that has always existed.”
    19. How does he do it?Not well.

      Scathing!

      Now I have to read it.

    20. The demand for recognition, Fukuyama says, is the “master concept”
    21. ukuyama thinks he knows what that something is, and his answer is summed up in the title of his new book, “Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment” (Farrar, Straus & Giroux).

      Get a copy of this to read.

    22. The National Interest, as the name proclaims, is a realist foreign-policy journal. But Fukuyama’s premise was that nations do share a harmony of interests, and that their convergence on liberal political and economic models was mutually beneficial. Realism imagines nations to be in perpetual competition with one another; Fukuyama was saying that this was no longer going to be the case.

      And here is a bit of the flaw. Countries are still at least in competition with each other economically, at least until they're all on equal footing from a modernity perspective.

      We are definitely still in completion with China and large parts of Europe.

    23. Fukuyama’s article could thus be seen as a bookend to Kennan’s.
    24. George Kennan, who was its first chief. In July of that year, Kennan published the so-called X article, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Foreign Affairs.
    25. But events in Europe unfolded more or less according to Fukuyama’s prediction, and, on December 26, 1991, the Soviet Union voted itself out of existence. The Cold War really was over.

      Or ostensibly, until a strong man came to power in Russia and began its downturn into something else. It definitely doesn't seem to be a liberal democracy, so we're still fighting against it.

    26. There would be a “Common Marketization” of international relations and the world would achieve homeostasis.

      Famous last words, right?!

      These are the types of statements one must try very hard not to make unless there is 100% certainty.

      I find myself wondering how can liberal democracy and capitalism manage to fight and make the case the the small tribes (everywhere, including within the US) that it can, could and should be doing more for them.

    27. Fukuyama’s argument was that, with the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union, the last ideological alternative to liberalism had been eliminated.

      "Last" in the sense of a big, modern threat. We're still facing the threats of tribalism, which apparently have a strong pull.

    1. heterogeneous networks have been found to be effective promoters of the evolution of cooperation, since there are advantages to being a cooperator when you are a hub, and hubs tend to stabilize networks in equilibriums where levels of cooperation are high (Ohtsuki et al. 2006), (Pacheco et al. 2006), (Lieberman et al. 2005), (Santos and Pacheco 2005).
    2. Social scientist, on the other hand, have focused on what ties are more likely to bring in new information, which are primarily weak ties (Granovetter 1973), and on why weak ties bring new information (because they bridge structural holes (Burt 2001), (Burt 2005)).
    3. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that social capital and social institutions are significant predictors of economic growth, after controlling for the effects of human capital and initial levels of income (Knack and Keefer 1997), (Knack 2002).4 So trust is a relevant dimension of social interactions that has been connected to individual dyads, network formation, labor markets, and even economic growth.
    4. Finally it is worth noting that trust, through the theory of social capital, has been connected with long-term economic growth—even though these results are based on regressions using extremely sparse datasets.

      And this is an example of how Trump is hurting the economy.

    5. preferential attachment. In the eyes of the social sciences, however, understanding which of all of these hypotheses drives the formation of the network is what one needs to explore.

      For example what drives attachment of political candidates?

    6. Rediscoveries of this idea in the twentieth century include the work of (Simon 1955) (who did cite Yule), (Merton 1968), (Price 1976) (who studied citation networks), and (Barabási and Albert 1999), who published the modern reference for this model, which is now widely known as the Barabasi-Albert model.
    7. Preferential attachment is an idea advanced originally by the statisticians John Willis and Udny Yule in (Willis and Yule 1922), but has been rediscovered numerous times during the twentieth century.
    8. Preferential attachment is the idea that connectivity begets connectivity.
    9. Yet, strategic games look for equilibrium in the formation and dissolution of ties in the context of the game theory advanced first by (Von Neumann et al. 2007), and later by (Nash 1950).
    10. The social foci hypothesis predicts that links are more likely to form among individuals who, for example, are classmates, co-workers, or go to the same gym (they share a social foci). The triadic closure hypothesis predicts that links are more likely to form among individuals that share “friends” or acquaintances. Finally, the homophily hypothesis predicts that links are more likely to form among individuals who share social characteristics, such as tastes, cultural background, or physical appearance (Lazarsfeld and Merton 1954), (McPherson et al. 2001).

      definitions of social foci, triadic closure, and homophily within network science.

    11. Social scientists explain link formation through two families of mechanisms; one that finds it roots in sociology and the other one in economics. The sociological approach assumes that link formation is connected to the characteristics of individuals and their context. Chief examples of the sociological approach include what I will call the big three sociological link-formation hypotheses. These are: shared social foci, triadic closure, and homophily.
    12. For instance, in the study of mobile phone networks, the frequency and length of interactions has often been used as measures of link weight (Onnela et al. 2007), (Hidalgo and Rodriguez-Sickert 1008), (Miritello et al. 2011).

      And they probably shouldn't because typically different levels of people are making these decisions. Studio brass and producers typically have more to say about the lead roles and don't care as much about the smaller ones which are overseen by casting directors or sometimes the producers. The only person who has oversight of all of them is the director, and even then they may quit caring at some point.

    13. Links are the essence of networks. So I will start this review by comparing the mechanisms used by natural and social scientists to explain link formation.
    14. First, I will focus in these larger groups because reviews that transcend the boundary between the social and natural sciences are rare, but I believe them to be valuable. One such review is Borgatti et al. (2009), which compares the network science of natural and social sciences arriving at a similar conclusion to the one I arrived.
    15. Problems of disorganized complexity are problems that can be described using averages and distributions, and that do not depend on the identity of the elements involved in a system, or their precise patterns of interactions. A classic example of a problem of disorganized complexity is the statistical mechanics of Ludwig Boltzmann, James-Clerk Maxwell, and Willard Gibbs, which focuses on the properties of gases.
    16. Science and Complexity (Weaver 1948); explained the three eras that according to him defined the history of science. These were the era of simplicity, disorganized complexity, and organized complexity. In the eyes of Weaver what separated these three eras was the development of mathematical tools allowing scholars to describe systems of increasing complexity.
    17. Social scientists focus on explaining how context specific social and economic mechanisms drive the structure of networks and on how networks shape social and economic outcomes. By contrast, natural scientists focus primarily on modeling network characteristics that are independent of context, since their focus is to identify universal characteristics of systems instead of context specific mechanisms.
    18. These results, however, have also been challenged by human experiments finding no such effect (Gracia-Lázaro et al. 2012). The study of cooperation in networks has also been performed in dynamic settings, where individuals are allowed to cut ties (Wang et al. 2012), promoting cooperation, and are faced with different levels of knowledge about the reputation of peers in their network (Gallo and Yan 2015). Moreover, cooperating behavior has seen to spread when people change the networks where they participate in (Fowler and Christakis 2010).

      Open questions

    19. When connecting the people that acted in the same movie, natural scientists do not differentiate between people in leading or supporting roles.

      But they should because it's not often the case that these are relevant unless they are represented by the same agent or agency.

    20. Soon after Weaver’s paper, biologists like Francois Jacob (Jacob and Monod 1961), (Jacob et al. 1963) and Stuart Kaufmann (Kauffman 1969), developed the idea of regulatory networks. Mathematicians like Paul Erdos and Alfred Renyi, advanced graph theory (Erdős and Rényi 1960) while Benoit Mandelbrot worked on Fractals (Mandelbrot and Van Ness 1968), (Mandelbrot 1982). Economists like Thomas Schelling (Schelling 1960) and Wasily Leontief (Leontief 1936), (Leontief 1936), respectively explored self-organization and input-output networks. Sociologists, like Harrison White (Lorrain and White 1971) and Mark Granovetter (Granovetter 1985), explored social networks, while psychologists like Stanley Milgram (Travers and Milgram 1969) explored the now famous small world problem.

      Some excellent references

    1. Fifty years ago, the science-fiction writer Philip K. Dick coined a phrase for these “useless objects” that accumulate in a house: “kipple.” In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, which served as the basis for the movie Blade Runner, he theorized that “the entire universe is moving toward a state of total, absolute kippleization.” Kipple reproduced, Dick wrote, when nobody was around. The ubiquity of mobile devices and the ease of online shopping have made Dick’s prediction come true, with one small tweak: Our kipple does not just multiply on its own, every time we turn away. We grow it ourselves, buying more and more of it, because we can.
    1. It has become banal to point out that almost any of these would have constituted a monumental scandal under any other president, but it remains true and important.
    2. The most important takeaway Tuesday is that the president’s own former personal attorney pleaded guilty to breaking campaign-finance laws at his alleged direction.
    1. Campus stores are often the ones driving inclusive-access initiatives, as they receive a cut of the sales. While the profit margins are smaller than for print, inclusive access means that the stores receive revenue from a larger number of customers. Donovan Garcia, course materials manager at the University of Mary Washington, said that lower margins were also mitigated by lower overheads. “We’re not purchasing books, we’re not paying shipping, we’re not having to put any time or effort into returning unused books or paying restocking fees,” said Garcia.

      I suspect the publisher is also saving on sales commissions to their sales staff as well.

    2. A key difference between inclusive access and buying print textbooks is that students effectively lease the content for the duration of their course, rather than owning the material. If students want to download the content to access it beyond the duration of their course, there is often an additional fee.

      So now we need to revisit the calculation above and put this new piece of data into the model.

      Seriously?! It's now a "rental price"?

    3. Students like the convenience of the system, said Anderson, and all have access to the most up-to-date content, instead of some students having different editions of the same textbook.

      They're also touting the most up-to-date content here, when it's an open secret that for the majority of textbooks don't really change that much from edition to edition.

    4. She said that her institution, which has inclusive-access agreements with more than 25 publishers, had saved students more than $2 million this semester alone.

      $ 2million compared to what? To everyone having purchased the textbooks at going rates before? This is a false comparison because not everyone bought new in the first place. Many bought used, and many more still probably either pirated, borrowed from a friend, from the library, or simply went without.

    5. The "inclusive" aspect of the model means that every student has the same materials on the first day of class, with the charge included as part of their tuition.

      It almost sounds to me like they know they're not getting a cut of the money from poorer students who are finding the material for free online anyway, so they're trying to up the stakes of the piece of pie that they're getting from a different angle.

      This other model of subscription at the level of the college or university is also one that they're well aware of based on involvement with subscription fees for journal access.

    1. You find them in a place that you curate yourself, not one “curated” for you by a massive corporate social network intent on forcing you to be every part of yourself to everyone, all at once. You should control how, when, and where to interact with your people.
    2. we can’t just recreate the same thing we’re trying to escape, and we can’t expect the solution to be precisely as easy on us as the problem was.
    3. web we lost
    4. our brains have been trained to believe that we want, that we need, a single place where all of “our people” can gather, where it is “easy” to keep up with all of them: a massive network service, just without all the “bad stuff” of the existing ones.
    5. Just like in real life, where your bar trivia team doesn’t really overlap with your work softball team or your church bowling league, all of your online communities gathered in their own places, ones best suited to them, and you didn’t have to act as all facets of yourself simultaneously when trying to only interact with one.
    1. M.B can’t be reduced to stereotypes, of course. But there’s also a bar to entry into this social-media network, and it’s a distinctly technophilic, first-world, Western bar.

      You can only say this because I suspect you're comparing it to platforms that are massively larger by many orders of magnitude. You can't compare it to Twitter or Facebook yet. In fact, if you were to compare it to them, then it would be to their early versions. Twitter was very technophilic for almost all of it's first three years until it crossed over into the broader conscious in early 2009.

      Your argument is somewhat akin to doing a national level political poll and only sampling a dozen people in one small town.

    1. We’ve played with this concept of front-end blogging for a while now. Alan Levine has built an open sourced tool called TRU Writer that even provides this type of front end interface on a WordPress site.
    1. Worse than the hackers are the competent journalists and site creators that are making legitimate content online, but get seduced by the SEO dark side into thinking they need to create content for Google instead of for their readers. It dumbs-down the content, which turns off your real audience, which ultimately makes you less valuable to advertisers. If you want to know why there’s so much remnant advertising on online news sites, it’s because you’re treating the stories like remnants already.
    1. But honestly, this is mostly just a post giving myself permission not to own my replies.

      I love this! Great rimshot at the end. Sometimes giving yourself the permission is important.

      I know there are others who don't own every reply they make because they also feel like replies are more contingent on context which primarily lives in the other place. It's fine for some of those conversations to be ephemeral and not "owned". In other case, if it's a reply to something you really care about and want to own, then by all means, own that one thing, but leave all the others out.

    2. That said: I will try to work out using webmentions to reply to folks replies that get backfed to my site, using my site’s comments. We’ll see.

      I spent some time trying to figure this out. It's not as hard as I would have presumed to thread comments between WordPress and Twitter. https://boffosocko.com/2018/07/02/threaded-conversations-between-wordpress-and-twitter/

      I do wish I had an automated way to write the comment on my site and syndicate it to Twitter automatically and have the threading work properly. For now I'm doing it manually--the few times I do do it.

    3. For me, the inconvenience of creating replies on my own site and syndicating them outweighs the benefit of owning my replies, as my replies are rarely substantive.

      An interesting point. I find that because I can do replies, they're actually typically more substantive now, otherwise they're not worth doing at all. For quick and non substantive replies, I'm typically still using my Known install for those quick hits.

    1. Legislative staff members had finished rewriting AB 375, and a deal seemed imminent. That Friday, as he drank his morning coffee, Mactaggart decided to read the new bill — the fine print — one more time. He noticed a seemingly minor alteration in one section, the kind of thing most people would skip over. Mactaggart realized it would completely gut what remained of the private right of action. Furious, he called Hertzberg and Chau and told them the deal was off. Neither lawmaker could explain who made the change, Mactaggart told me, but Hertzberg scrambled to fix it. “In most negotiations, you are talking to all these different interest groups,” Hertzberg told me recently. “This is a situation where we had to go and reach out to everyone and bring that information to Mr. Mactaggart and ask him what he wanted to do.”

      Here's a case where we ought to consider creating our bills and laws via version control, so we can see exactly who, what, and when things changed along the way. It might mean much less gets done, but there'd be a lot more transparency and accountability.

    2. By last year, Google’s parent, Alphabet, was spending more money on lobbyists than any other corporation in America.
    3. “Under this law, the attorney general of California will become the chief privacy officer of the United States of America,” Mactaggart argued.
    4. Facebook’s chief concern, he said, was a feature of the proposal called a “private right of action.” Unlike the Obama bill, which left most enforcement to the F.T.C., Mactaggart proposed letting consumers sue companies that violated the law. (Illinois had included such a right in its biometrics law, allowing Licata to sue Facebook.) Facebook feared that if interpretation of the new rules was left to juries, rather than regulators, it would take years just to determine what the company’s compliance obligations were. “We support more disclosure in principle,” Castleberry explained to me. “But the stakes are just much higher with the private right of action.”

      aka, we could bleed too much here because of the small deltas... Here's a good example of where, if you can aggregate things, the total seems much larger from afar compared with smaller injustices which are all appropriately accounted and then tallied. Think calculus...

    5. “Silicon Valley’s model puts the onus on the user to decide if the bargain is fair,” Soltani told me recently. “It’s like selling you coffee and making it your job to decide if the coffee has lead in it.” When it comes to privacy, he said, “we have no baseline law that says you can’t put lead in coffee.”

      An interesting analogy for privacy

    6. But the entire business model — what the philosopher and business theorist Shoshana Zuboff calls “surveillance capitalism” — rests on untrammeled access to your personal data.

      Is Shoshana Zuboff the originator of surveillance capitalism?

      According to Wikipedia--No: Surveillance capitalism is a term first introduced by John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney in Monthly Review in 2014 and later popularized by academic Shoshana Zuboff that denotes a new genus of capitalism that monetizes data acquired through surveillance.

    7. “I thought it was a joke at first, to be contacted by someone named ‘Alastair Mactaggart,’ ” says Chris Jay Hoofnagle,

      This seems like the pot calling the kettle...

    1. I learned a valuable lesson that the haters have all the energy in the world to share their outrage but the people you really want to reach respect you, your time, and what you’re doing and they are often too busy to take the time to express gratitude.
    1. What David told me was his energy, enthusiasm in the class was at a much higher level with the OER approach. Sure we choose the polished “professional” textbook because of its assumed high standards, quality etc, but then its a more passive relationship a teacher has with it. I make the comparison to growing and/or making your own food versus having it prepared or taking it out of a package. Having produced our own food means we know everything about it from top to bottom, and the pride in doing that has to make the whole experience much more energized.

      As I read both this post and this comment from Alan, I can't help but think again about scholars in the 14th century who taught students. It was more typical of the time that students were "forced" to chose their own textbooks--typically there were fewer, and at the advent of the printing press they were significantly higher in price. As a result students had to spend more time and attention, as Robin indicates here, to come up with useful things.

      Even in this period students often annotated their books, which often got passed on to other students and even professors which helped future generations. So really, we're not reinventing the wheel here, we're just doing it anew with new technology that makes doing it all the easier.

      As a reference, I'll suggest folks interested in this area read Owen Gingerich's The Book Nobody Read.

    2. working in public, and asking students to work in public, is fraught with dangers and challenges.
    3. If OER is free, what hidden costs exist in its production? Making these textbooks is taking me a chunk of time in the off-season.  Thanks to my salaried position, I feel ok about putting in the overtime, but it’s a privilege my colleagues who teach under year-to-year part-time non-contracts can’t afford. Who should be funding OER creation? Institutions? Students? For-profit start-ups? How will you invest time in this project without obscuring the true costs of academic labor? Right now, we pass the corruptly high cost of academic publishing onto the backs of academia’s most vulnerable members: students. But as OER gains steam, we need to come up with funding models that don’t land us back in the same quagmire of exploitation that we were trying to get out of.

      This is a nearly perfect question and something to watch in the coming years.

    4. Most of the actual texts in the Heath were public domain texts, freely available and not under any copyright restrictions.  As the Heath produced new editions (of literature from roughly 1400-1800!), forcing students to buy new textbooks or be irritatingly out of sync with page numbers, and as students turned to rental markets that necessitated them giving their books back at the end of the semester, I began to look in earnest for an alternative.

      Repackaging public domain texts and charging a steep markup too much above and beyond the cost of the paper is just highway robbery. Unless a publisher is adding some actual annotative or analytical value, they shouldn't be charging outrageous prices for textbooks of this nature.

    1. Disposable assignments are the ones students hate to do, faculty hate to grade and are quickly forgotten. Think ten-page term papers.

      There's no reason that the 10 page term paper couldn't be repurposed for the greater good. Why not post it up on your own website and allow it to be part of the bigger part of academic research?

    2. Our work, said Campbell, is not to graduate more students, but to enable students to graduate themselves.
    1. They are allowed to operate independently and explore with personal freedom.

      There is still typically a "thing(s)" they need to learn, a goal they need to reach, or standards that are typically set, so the freedom only goes so far.

    1. Because students know their work will be used both by their peers and potentially by future generations of students, they invest in this work at a different level.

      I'm wondering if Greg McVerry stated something along these lines at the beginning of EDU522? I suspected he's planning something along these lines, but I'm unsure if it was stated specifically. Students should also know about creative commons and be actively opting in to creating this content as open while they're doing it. They also shouldn't be forced into opening it up, or if they do, not necessarily taking credit for it if they choose not to.

    2. When you can assume that all the materials you’re using in and with your class are open educational resources, here’s one way to remix the effective practices listed above with OER in order to provide you and your students with opportunities to spend your time and effort on work that makes the world a better place instead of wasting it on disposable assignments.

      As I think of remix, reuse, redistribute and things like git and version control, I also can't help but think that being able to send and receive webmentions in the process of reusing and redistribution with referential links back to the originals will allow the original creator to at least be aware of the changes and their existence to potentially manually add them to the original project. (Manually because they may not (yet) know how to keep their content under source control or allow others to do so and send pull requests.)

    3. Free to accessFree to reuseFree to reviseFree to remixFree to redistributeThe question becomes, then, what is the relationship between these additional capabilities and what we know about effective teaching and learning? How can we extend, revise, and remix our pedagogy based on these additional capabilities?

      I look at this and think immediatly about the Git model of allowing people to not only fork and reuse/redistribute pieces, but what about the ability to do pull requests to take improvements and push them back up the the source so that everyone potentially benefits?

    1. And to Vivian Rolfe’s point made at OpenEd 16, are we are paying enough attention to voices of the past?

      And of course, there's the flip side of thinking about the voices of the future as well. Looking at the past is a nice exercise, but consider what those in the past would have potentially done differently if they could have seen the future? We should spend a moment or two of reflection on what the future potentially holds with the prior of where we are right now.

    2. open pedagogy is currently a sort of proxy for the use and creation of open educational resources as opposed to being tied to a broader pedagogical objective.
    3. mediatheques

      One doesn't come across this word frequently, but it does a pretty good job of describing what the internet is...

    4. us ed tech folks will recognize some of the themes – individualized learning, learner choice, self-direction, – to name a few.

      Aren't these all just Montessori principles under a different name?

    5. Paquette outlines 3 sets of foundational values of open pedagogy, namely:  autonomy and interdependence; freedom and responsibility; democracy and participation.
    1. The current buzz about open pedagogy got kick-started in David Wiley’s 2013 blog post. Wiley defined open pedagogy as any approach or technique that would not be possible without the “5Rs” (at the time listed as the “4Rs plus free to access”: free to access, free to reuse, free to revise, free to remix, free to redistribute – the right to retain came later…) of OER.
    1. Each individual message can either be: Fully public, appearing to your followers, the public timelines, anyone looking at your profile Unlisted, appearing to your followers and anyone looking at your profile, but skipping the public timelines Private, appearing only to your followers and people mentioned in it And direct, appearing only to people mentioned in it
    2. Another feature that has been requested almost since the start, and which I keep rejecting is quoting messages.
    3. Mastodon deliberately does not support arbitrary search. If someone wants their message to be discovered, they can use a hashtag, which can be browsed. What does arbitrary search accomplish? People and brands search for their own name to self-insert into conversations they were not invited to. What you can do, however, is search messages you posted, received or favourited. That way you can find that one message on the tip of your tongue.
    4. So that’s already a huge advantage over other platforms due the basic design. And in my opinion it’s got advantages over the other extreme, too, a pure peer-to-peer design, where everyone would have to fend for themselves, without the pooled resources.

      Definitely something the IndieWeb may have to solve for.

    1. Among the things that endeared him to his public was his comic use of language in his films; his characters (all of which were really variations of the main "Cantinflas" persona but cast in different social roles and circumstances) would strike up a normal conversation and then complicate it to the point where no one understood what they were talking about. The Cantinflas character was particularly adept at obfuscating the conversation when he owed somebody money, was courting an attractive young woman, or was trying to talk his way out of trouble with authorities, whom he managed to humiliate without their even being able to tell. This manner of talking became known as Cantinflear, and it became common parlance for Spanish speakers to say "¡estás cantinfleando!" (loosely translated as you're pulling a "Cantinflas!" or you're "Cantinflassing!") whenever someone became hard to understand in conversation.

      Similar to doublespeak, technobabble, and other varieties

    1. Quick aside to you if you're that guy rushing down to the comments to say something like "No one needs to use Facebook. I don't use Facebook." Shut up. Most people do use Facebook. And for many people it is important to their lives. In some cases, there are necessary services that require Facebook. And you should support that rather than getting all preachy about your own life choices, good or bad.

      I did just this in effect, but for different reasons than I suspect he expected. If Facebook is a utility like he indicates then they have a higher responsibility and should act like a utility and provide things like webmention so others could leave but still interact with friends on the utility. Otherwise we're stick with a system that has the ability to abuse us because society thinks they need to be there.

    2. So with the question of Alex Jones or holocaust deniers, internet platforms (again) have every right to kick them off their platforms.

      Why didn't more people kick themselves off of Facebook after the Homicide denier comments by Zuckerberg? That's an option too.

    3. Infowars' own terms of service makes it clear that Infowars can boot anyone it wants:

      Interesting that he references and uses the specific word tribalism here. I can't help but think about suicide of the West

    1.  recording it all in a Twitter thread that went viral and garnered the hashtag  #PlaneBae.

      I find it interesting that The Atlantic files this story with a URL that includes "/entertainment/" in it's path. Culture, certainly, but how are three seemingly random people's lives meant to be classified by such a journalistic source as "entertainment?"

    1. The spaces may change, but the organizing principles aren’t different.
    2. “If you’re not on MySpace, you don’t exist.”

      In prior generations, if you couldn't borrow dad's car, you didn't exist...

      Cross reference the 1955 cultural touchstone film Rebel Without a Cause. While the common perception is that James Dean, portraying Jim Stark, was the rebel (as seen in the IMDB.com description of the film "A rebellious young man with a troubled past comes to a new town, finding friends and enemies."), it is in fact Plato, portrayed by Sal Mineo, who is the true rebel. Plato is the one who is the disruptive and rebellious youth who is always disrupting the lives of those around him. (As an aside, should we note Plato's namesake was also a rebel philosopher in his time?!?)

      Plato's first disruption in the film is the firing of the cannon at school. While unstated directly, due to the cultural mores of Hollywood at the time, Plato is a closeted homosexual who's looking to befriend someone, anyone. His best shot is the new kid before the new kid manages to find his place in the pecking order. Again Jim Stark does nothing in the film but attempt to fit into the social fabric around him, his only problem is that he's the new guy. Most telling here about their social structures is that Jim has ready access to an automobile (a literal rolling social club--notice multiple scenes in the film with cars full of teenagers) while Plato is relegated to an old scooter (a mode of transport focused on the singleton--the transport of the outcast, the rebel).

      The Rebel Plato, with his scooter--and a gun, no less! Plato as portrayed by Sal Mineo in Rebel Without a Cause (1955). Notice that as the rebel, he's pictured in the middleground with a gun while his scooter protects him in the foreground. In the background is the automobile, the teens' coveted source of freedom at the time.

    3. Unlike me and the other early adopters who avoided our local community by hanging out in chat-rooms and bulletin boards, most teenagers now go online to connect to the people in their community. Their online participation is not eccentric; it is entirely normal, even expected.

      There's a broad disconnect between her personal experiences and those of the teens she's studying. Based on my understanding, she was a teen on the fringes of her local community and eschewed the cultural norms--thus her perspective is somewhat skewed here. She sounds like she was at the bleeding edge of the internet while most of her more average peers were likely relying on old standbys like telephones, cars, and pagers. Thus not much has changed. I suspect that most teens have always been more interested in their local communities and peers. It's danah boyd who was three standard deviations away from the norm who sought out ways to communicate with others like herself that felt marginalized. The internet made doing that far easier for her and future generations compared to those prior who had little, if any outlet to social interactions outside of the pale of their communities.

    4. few of my friends in the early 1990s were interested in computers at all.

      I would suspect for the time period they were all sending text messages via pager.

    5. But many adults were staring into their devices intently, barely looking up

      Socially adults have created their longer term bonds and aren't as socially attached, so while their teens are paying attention to others, they're often doing something else: books, newspapers, and now cell phones.

    6. When they did look at their phones, they were often sharing the screen with the person sitting next to them, reading or viewing something together.

      Over history, most "teen technology" is about being able to communicate with their peers. From the handwritten letter via post, to the telephone, to the car, to the pager, and now the cell phone.

    7. the more things had changed, the more they seemed the same.
    8. the internet?

      What if we replaced the words "the internet" in this piece with "the telephone" in the 1960-1970's? I wonder how much of the following analysis would ring true to that time period? Are we just rehashing old ideas in new settings?

    9. given that I was in Nashville to talk with teens about how technology had changed their lives.

      I have to wonder who the sociologists were from the 60's that interviewed teens about how the telephone changed their lives. Or perhaps the 70's sociologist who interviewed kids about how cars changed their lives? Certainly it wasn't George Lucas' American Graffiti that informed everyone of the issues?

    10. the kids are all right

      Given danah's age, I would suspect that with a copyright date of 2014, she's likely referencing the 2010 feature film The Kids are Alright.

      However that film's title is a cultural reference to a prior generation's anthem in an eponymous song) by The Who which appeared on the album My Generation. Interestingly the lyrics of the song of the same name on that album is one of their best known and is applicable to the ideas behind this piece as well.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETvVH2JAxrA

    11. As I began to get a feel for the passions and frustrations of teens and to speak to broader audiences, I recognized that teens’ voices rarely shaped the public discourse surrounding their networked lives.

      Again, putting this into historical context, is this sentence different for any prior period if we remove the word "networked"?

      It's been a while, but the old saw "A child should be seen and not heard" comes quickly to mind for me.

    12. identity why do teens seem strange online?292privacy why do youth share so publicly?543addiction what makes teens obsessed with social media?774danger are sexual predators lurking everywhere?1005bullying is social media amplifying meanness and cruelty?1286inequality can social media resolve social divisions?1537literacy are today’s youth digital natives?1768searching for a public of their own199

      Just reading this table of contents reminds me that this "analysis of teens" seems a lot like the perennial contemplations of adults who think that the generations of teenagers coming behind them is different, weird, or even deviant.

      A typical case in point is that of the greatest generation looking at the long-haired 60's hippy teens who came after them. "Why do they like rock and roll? They do too many drugs. There's no hope for the future." "Damn kids. Get off of my lawn!"

      Is the way that current teens and millennials react to social just another incarnation of this general idea?

    1. They did that to the point where  there were more asterisks on the page than stars in the sky. Despite all this, the annotations did not mean anything to the students.

      Keeping in mind that different people learn in different ways, there's another possible way of looking at this.

      Some people learn better aurally than visually. Some remember things better by writing them down. I know a few synaesthetes who likely might learn better by using various highlighting colors. Perhaps those who highlight everything are actually helping their own brains to learn by doing this?

      This said, I myself still don't understand people who are highlighting everything in their books this way. I suspect that some are just trying and imitating what they've seen before and just haven't learned to read and annotate actively.

      Helping students to discover how they best learn can be a great hurdle to cross, particularly at a young age. Of course, this being said, we also need to help them exercise the other modalities and pathways to help make them more well-rounded and understanding as well.

    2. I believe, and I try to emphasize to the students, that annotation is a deeply personal activity, my annotations may look different from yours because we think differently.

      We often think differently even on different readings. Sometimes upon re-reading pieces, I'll find and annotate completely different things than I would have on the first pass. Sometimes (often with more experience and new eyes) I'll even disagree with what I'd written on prior passes.

      This process reminds me a bit of the Barbell Method of Reading

    1. People think they want celebrities to speak honestly, but we’re not really that happy when they do.

      Definition of celebrity : one who is coddled and rarely said no to.

    2. I heard a rumor that she

      Don't these types of things happen to EVERY celebrity?

    3. I once went to an internist twice, complaining of preternatural exhaustion, only to be told that I was depressed and sent home. On the third visit, she begrudgingly took my blood and called me later to even more begrudgingly apologize and tell me I had a surprising case of mononucleosis. I know women who’ve been dismissed by their doctors for being lazy and careless and depressed and downright crazy. Was it any wonder that they would start to

      Sample size of one in an anecdote is just rubbish.

    4. After a few too many cultural firestorms, and with investors to think about, G.P. made some changes. Goop has hired a lawyer to vet all claims on the site. It hired an editor away from Condé Nast to run the magazine. It hired a man with a Ph.D. in nutritional science, and a director of science and research who is a former Stanford professor. And in September, Goop, sigh, is hiring a full-time fact-checker. G.P. chose to see it as “necessary growing pain.”

      But only to protect investors... Not customers that they've been duping all along.

    5. I thought about my children, one of whom plays the flute, but unwillingly, and therefore won’t practice. Yes, I thought about my children, only one of whom might shake your hand while the other would sooner spit on it, though they will both reliably do an elaborate orchestration of armpit farting while I’m trying to hear myself think. I thought of my mother and father, and an earlier conversation I had with my sisters that day about where to arrange our parents in a room for one of our kids’ bar mitzvahs so that they wouldn’t interact, so raw still are the wounds 35 years after their divorce.

      No mention of the difference between how we act at home with family versus with strangers. She's set up a false dichotomy to accentuate a point that's probably not worth making. Or if she wants to make a point it should be this one that I've just highlighted. If course she's feeling inadequate. I'll bet G. P. does too, particularly after the writer leaves and she doesn't have to put her best face on.

    6. Goop wanted Goop magazine to be like the Goop website in another way: to allow the Goop family of doctors and healers to go unchallenged in their recommendations via the kinds of Q. and A.s published, and that just didn’t pass Condé Nast standards. Those standards require traditional backup for scientific claims, like double-blind, peer-reviewed studies.

      Nice that they come right out and say it.

    7. Her feet were bare now, and they had a perfect, substantial arch, just as the Romans intended, engineered to support her statue body. I bet they were a Size 8. People make shoes so that feet like those can wear them. We blew smoke up the chimney.

      I feel like she's taken an interesting article and flushed it in the preceding several fawning paragraphs.

    8. She reached behind her to her bookshelf, which held about a dozen blue bottles of something called Real Water, which is not stripped of “valuable electrons,” which supposedly creates free radicals something something from the body’s cells.

      I question her credibility to market claims like this. I suspect she has no staff scientist or people with the sort of background to make such claims. Even snake oil salesmen like Dr. Oz are pointedly putting us in hands way too make a buck.

    9. Whom exactly were we trusting with our care? Why did we decide to trust them in the first place? Who says that only certain kinds of people are allowed to give us the answers?

      Part of the broader cultural eschewing of science as well? Is this part of what put Trump and celebrities in charge?

    10. The minute the phrase “having it all” lost favor among women, wellness came in to pick up the pieces. It was a way to reorient ourselves — we were not in service to anyone else, and we were worthy subjects of our own care. It wasn’t about achieving; it was about putting ourselves at the WB_wombat_top of a list that we hadn’t even previously been on. Wellness was maybe a result of too much having it all, too much pursuit, too many boxes that we’d seen our exhausted mothers fall into bed without checking off. Wellness arrived because it was gravely needed.
    1. If you look long enough you can find my early terrible writing. You can find blog posts in which I am an idiot. I’ve had a lot of uninformed and passionate opinions on geopolitical issues from Ireland to Israel. You can find tweets I thought were witty, but think are stupid now. You can find opinions I still hold that you disagree with. I’m going to leave most of that stuff up. In doing so, I’m telling you that you have to look for context if you are seeking to understand me. You don’t have to try, I’m not particularly important, but I am complicated. When I die, I’m going to instruct my executors to burn nothing. Leave the crap there, because it’s part of my journey, and that journey has a value. People who came from where I did, and who were given the thoughts I was given, should know that the future can be different from the past.
    2. I am not, and will never be, a simple writer. I have sought to convict, accuse, comfort, and plead with my readers. I’m leaving the majority of my flaws online: Go for it, you can find them if you want. It’s a choice I made long ago.
    3. I had been a victim of something the sociologists Alice Marwick and danah boyd call context collapse, where people create online culture meant for one in-group, but exposed to any number of out-groups without its original context by social-media platforms, where it can be recontextualized easily and accidentally.
    4. Context collapse is our constant companion online.
    5. I used to think that showing someone how wrong they were on the internet could fix the world. I said a lot of stupid things when I believed that.
    6. Don’t internet angry. If you’re angry, internet later.
    7. It helped me learn a lesson: Be damn sure when you make angry statements.
    8. I had even written about context collapse myself, but that hadn’t saved me from falling into it, and then hurting other people I didn’t mean to hurt.
    9. I am not immune from these mistakes, for mistaking a limited snapshot of something for what it is in its entirety. I have been on the other side.
    10. Not everyone believes loving engagement is the best way to fight evil beliefs, but it has a good track record. Not everyone is in a position to engage safely with racists, sexists, anti-Semites, and homophobes, but for those who are, it’s a powerful tool. Engagement is not the one true answer to the societal problems destabilizing America today, but there is no one true answer. The way forward is as multifarious and diverse as America is, and a method of nonviolent confrontation and accountability, arising from my pacifism, is what I can bring to helping my society.
    11. This taught me that not everyone worthy of love is worthy of emulation. It also taught me that being given terrible ideas is not a destiny, and that intervention can change lives.
    12. History doesn’t ask you if you want to be born in a time of upheaval, it just tells you when you are.
    13. I have a teenage daughter, and I have told her all her life that all the grown-ups are making it up as they go along. I have also waggled my eyebrows suggestively while saying it, to make it clear to her that I mean me, too.
    1. In reading this I almost suspect that it may have been more valuable to have had a book-length version of this a la JD Vance's Hillbilly Elegy to have become popular before the 2016 election than to have had Hillbilly Elegy.

    2. If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

      Interesting that this is interpreted in modern times in the same way as it was in ancient. A lot of this writing had to have been specific to it's political context at a time when keeping things in house was both to the benefit of the individuals as well as the Church which was a minority within a broader Roman protectorate.

      Why can't Christians manage to see any historical context for a 2000 year old document that is far from a living one?

    3. If you want to understand the Christian extremism that represents the single greatest threat to democracy and human rights in America today, it’s important to understand how authoritarian Christians read the Bible.

      Very likely true.

    4. bars women from teaching men or holding any leadership position over them.

      and potentially one of the major reasons people were against Hilary Clinton.

    5. In the New Testament, familial metaphors are frequently used to describe Christians and what came to be construed as the universal Church. Christians are “brothers” and “sisters” to one another. Weirdly, collectively they are also the body and the bride of Christ. Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands “as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior” (Ephesians 5:22-23). This teaching of male headship is, of course, a source of much abuse of women in conservative Christian circles, and evangelical pastors have been known to abuse, to sweep abuse under the rug, and to counsel women that they must remain in abusive marriages since, after all, Jesus himself forbade divorce, and God can use suffering for good.

      And of course this also likely the source of American mores which have delivered us the power struggle that results in abuses which have boiled over into the MeToo scandals.

    6. The other reason I am writing it, however, is that I know that many of my fellow exvies have, like me, struggled for years to make an open break with their families because of the pressure to conform that comes from inherently abusive fundamentalist socialization.

      Some of this reminds me of the insularity and abusive practices of the Hasidim in the recent documentary One of Us. I think there are more pockets of people living like this than most people admit or we as a society should allow.

      I also think there's a link to Fukuyama's growth of politics here which is highlighted by Jonah Goldberg's Suicide of the West.

    7. The result is that the readers of major news outlets are presented with an unrealistically benign picture of a darkly authoritarian, cult-like branch of Protestantism. That’s one reason I’m writing this essay.
    8. I think it’s important for liberal Americans who do not come from a patriarchal religious background to hear our stories and to sit with that shock. Why? Because I remain convinced that if American civil society and the American press fail to come to grips with just how radically theocratic the Christian Right is, any kind of post-Trump soft landing scenario in which American democracy recovers a healthy degree of functionality is highly unlikely.

      I haven't directly experienced this patriarchal religious background to the extreme that the writer has, but I grew up in "Jesus Land" and know it exists. I suspect he's largely correct here.