47 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2022
  2. May 2022
    1. There are many reasons why humans do not make decisions rationally in order tomaximize utility or value. First, rational choice methods of decision making are based onthe concept of unbounded rationality which does not describe how people naturally reason.People are not consistently rational in their thinking. They often make decisions thatsatisfice, rather than optimize (Simon 1957).

      A ldl

    Annotators

  3. Apr 2022
    1. Capabilities are essen-tial in the establishment of SCRE and therefore improvethe performance of organisations when facing disrup-tive events (Pettit, Croxton, and Fiksel 2013)

      Well, if you define SCRE as a set of capabilities, then you have a circular argument here.

    2. Building SCRE requires one to continuouslyadopt and develop capabilities (Pettit, Croxton, and Fik-sel 2013; Ponomarov and Holcomb 2009)

      The implication of "continuously" is that these capabilities should be revised constantly and adapt to changes in the environment. This could be understood as an example of the organizations as organisms metaphor from Morgan.

    Annotators

    1. Why? Because “organizing things” is one of those nice-to-have things that people never get around to. And for good reason: it represents time-consuming overhead work with no clear return or impact.

      It's being in motion rather than taking action

    2. There is another useful guideline here: put personally relevant information in Areas, and generally useful information in Resources.

      Not sure if that is an easy line to draw. After all, everything is knowledge and resources are for personal use

    3. Areas of Responsibility are the roles you take on in life and the hats you wear (Spouse, Mother/Father, Team Leader, Soccer Coach), the ongoing standards where the buck stops with you (Product Development, Company Newsletter, Legal), and things that take a certain amount of constant attention (Exercise, Finances, Apartment, Pets).

      Components of personal identities

    4. Thus it’s much more important, in my opinion, to associate projects with their respective goals, rather than areas.

      Plus, a project can be relevant to more than one area

    1. Always link your notes: Whenever you add a note, make sure to link it to already existing notes. Avoid notes that are disconnected from other notes. As Luhmann himself put it, “each note is just an element that derives its quality from the network of links in the system. A note that is not connected to the network will be lost, will be forgotten by the Zettelkasten” (original in German).

      Emerging properties from a system of notes.

    2. You’re just hunting down ideas to incorporate into your Zettelkasten. Who cares if you don’t understand everything? As long as you’re extracting some ideas, you’re growing your knowledge base and the text is being useful to you.

      This is a dangerous route because you could feed garbage to your zettelkasten. Furthermore, it falls for the collector's fallacy mentioned earlier on the article.

      You can, of course, misunderstand a source, but I wouldn't highlight this as an advantage of any note taking approach.

    1. Name a genius and find a tutor

      This isn't supported in proper evidence. Frankly, it is extremely hard to support. Plus, it doesn't look at the people that were tutored and didn't become geniuses. What is the proportion of that?

    2. He does not argue their merits; to him it is obvious that these are the men who deserve to be thought of as “world-historical” figures, and it is clear from the way he makes his arguments that he expects that his own readers already agree with him.

      Colinializm at its best. Look at all the examples, and what do you see? Westerns (and Tolstoi). Are you really telling me that guys like Gracía Marquez, Neruda, Vargas Llosa, or Saramago are not geniuses just because English-speaking countries haven't accepted them as such? BS.

      At the end, this is the biggest problem with this article (and most of its references); that the definition of genius is based on public acceptance as such (specially in the west).

    3. Shakespeare

      This is an interesting example because Shakespeare wasn't widely appreciated early on and only reached "world dominance" way after his death. Maybe we are in fact surrounded by geniuses don't recognize them as such (yet).

    4. I think the most depressing fact about humanity is that during the 2000s most of the world was handed essentially free access to the entirety of knowledge and that didn’t trigger a golden age.

      This just isn't true. Maybe most of the USA (and that'll be a stretch), but not most of the world. Internet penetration rates are not at "most of the world" levels, and content in languages other than English is hard to find.

    1. "I'm actually a big fan of anecdotes in business," Bezos said at the leadership forum as he explained why he reads customer emails and forwards them to the appropriate executive. Often, he says, the customer anecdotes are more insightful than data.

      I'm absolutely sure that no mayor decision in Amazon is made based on an anecdote. This is a minefield for biases and bad decisions.

    1. Among people who suffer an episode of depression, at least half become depressed again later in life.

      If context doesn't change they will obviously get frequent episodes of depression...

    2. Or some other factor could be causing both depression and sleep deprivation to rise. But the smartphone, its blue light glowing in the dark, is likely playing a nefarious role.

      Even after accepting the lack of evidence supporting causation, the author insists on seeing this as a causal relationship.

    3. One study asked college students with a Facebook page to complete short surveys on their phone over the course of two weeks. They’d get a text message with a link five times a day, and report on their mood and how much they’d used Facebook. The more they’d used Facebook, the unhappier they felt, but feeling unhappy did not subsequently lead to more Facebook use.

      From this very short description, and without more details of this uncited study, it seems very fishy. I don't see how that methodology can lead to those conclusions.

    4. Of course, these analyses don’t unequivocally prove that screen time causes unhappiness; it’s possible that unhappy teens spend more time online.

      Mentioned above

    5. Teens who spend more time than average on screen activities are more likely to be unhappy, and those who spend more time than average on nonscreen activities are more likely to be happy.

      Causation or correlation?

      Could it be that unhappy kids turn to social media more often as an outlet for depression?

    6. Why are today’s teens waiting longer to take on both the responsibilities and the pleasures of adulthood?

      This assumes that there is an appropriate time in which adulthood should start and that the current generation is delaying it. Can it be that previous generations were too soon on adulthood and we should be asking why they did that?

    7. But the allure of independence, so powerful to previous generations, holds less sway over today’s teens, who are less likely to leave the house without their parents.

      Could it be that, because of phones, now you don't have to be physically away from parents to be independent?

    8. I’ve been researching generational differences for 25 years, starting when I was a 22-year-old doctoral student in psychology. Typically, the characteristics that come to define a generation appear gradually, and along a continuum.

      This aline makes me doubt the article. Generations are a problematic concept because it ignores cultural, regional, and socio-economic differences.

      At the end, generations are an example of intellectual imperialism; the centering of scientific knowledge on the USA and assuming it as universal.

    1. First, we each have to define it for ourselves. I personally like Aristotle’s outline: “something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for.” I divide this into four pillars that should balance each other: brain (knowledge, relevance, professional expertise, lifelong learning); love (relationships, family, community, care); change (openness to self-question, networks, transition skills); and choice (financial flexibility, savings, earning power).

      These are not generalizable, but can be used as guidelines

    2. So many of us say we want balance, but we aren’t extreme enough in our devotion to this ideal.

      It might be a wording issue, but this is contradictory with the main idea of moderation

    3. I long ago decided to invest in extreme moderation. I do everything with the deliberate intent of finding a balance between two extremes — doing nothing and doing too much.

      Mediocrity as a (valid) life style with a deliberate design around it

    1. As agricultural production in Nigeria is still largely rain-fed, the issue of timely access to finance, ahead of the rainy season, remains a reoccurring constraint to the socio-economic growth of farmers (ibid)

      Timing, agility, and coordination requirements

    2. Currency and bank transaction issues: currently, investing in Nigeria’s agriculture through crowdfarming can only be carried out in Nigeria’s currency (the Naira) due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates. As a result, investors are required to have a Naira account to participate in this space.

      Des-integration (or at least substantial friction) with global markets

    3. Low level of awareness and trust issues: according to the Chief Technical Officer of Thrive Agric, not many people are aware of crowdfarming and its benefits to both investors and farmers in Nigeria. As such, there is still the potential for more people to invest but getting the word out there, cost effectively, remains a challenge.

      Scaling issues

    4. Thrive Agric’s model has attracted over 3500 investors, located in 10 countries (Figure 2), who have invested in nine agricultural value chains, directly supporting the livelihoods of over 12,000 farmers (Figure 3), since its inception in 2017.

      Potential resilience improvement by improving resources flow and reducing dependency.

    1. #5. The dominance of time-bound degrees and "just-in-case" education will diminish. Meanwhile, non-degree certifications and "just-in-time" education will increase in status and value. We will see a reset between the value placed on degrees, once highly prized for indicating a level of skill and knowledge to be ready for the future, and "just-in-time" education, which is present-oriented and more immediate.

      The biggest adjustment will have to come from employers. How can they replace the trust previously offered by universities? This looks like winner-takes-all game in which digital technologies allow some universities to scale enough to absorb or kill the rest based on brand and performance.

      The competitive focus should be on non-digitizable learning experiences

    2. Competency-based programs have shifted the focus of education from seat-time to learning outcomes

      When or where has it been based on seat-time? Is this an American thing, because I haven't seen this anywhere I've studied.

      While academic credits are described in terms of hours, approving said credits is a matter of outcomes.

    3. Students don't learn at the same rate, and the explosion of new content being produced by museums, software companies, retailers, and other organizations inside and outside higher education is becoming so heterogeneous that students' academic progress can't be translated into uniform time or process measures.

      Does this mean, for traditional universities, a shift towards (somewhat premium) content, spaces, and experiences, and evaluation of competences regardless of the competences produced by those experiences?

      Are courses one of those experiences? What should be the new role of professors in this escenario?

    4. With near universal access to digital devices and the internet, students will seek from colleges the same things they are getting from the music, movie and newspaper industries.

      The omnichannel new minimum is unquestionable. The unbundling, however is counterfactual. How are music or movies streaming services like spotify or netflix unbundling? Platzi, for example, does the opposite.

      I do get that trafitional degrees can be unbundled so that students can only see the "courses" that they see as relevant, but from a business perspective, that doesn't fit in the unbundling category

    5. In a range of knowledge fields -- take, for example, the newspaper, movie, and recording industries -- the advent of the global, digital, knowledge economy multiplied the number of content providers and disseminators and has given consumers choice over the what, where, when, and how of the content they consume.

      While this is true, those industries also experienced a huge contration; the last survivors are bigger than ever (I'm looking at you Penguin). Other comparable industries (in terms of low entry barriers for new content producers) like video games seem to be rather unaffected by this phenomenon. How are these industries different than music or news (perhaps the most affected)?

      It might be that the decay of these industries is still an ongoing process and that they'll also fall in due time, but I haven't seen any evidence of that to this date.

      Also, it gave rise to new dominant players like streaming platforms (spotify et.al.) or digital distributors (amazon kindle et.al.) What forms will these new actors take in the education sector?

    6. New content producers and distributors will continue to enter the marketplace, driving up competition and consumer choice while driving down prices. They will emphasize digital technologies, reject time- and place-based education, create low-cost degrees, offer competency- or outcome-based education, and award nontraditional credentials.

      I don't see how these new content producers are any different than book publisher. It be multi media content, but it is still static. Furthermore, this isn't competency or outcome-based education; it purely centred on content.

    7. Industrial societies standardize time and process in the manner of an assembly line, one of the most successful technologies of industrial age. In contrast, knowledge economies put a premium on standardizing outcomes. Time and process are variable. The university of the emerging era will have to embrace those shifting values. It must be rooted in outcomes rather than time and process. It must on learning rather than teaching. It must be student- rather than faculty-centric.

      I get the time-is-variable dimension ond the focus shift towards outcomes. However, the de-focus on process is still unclear. How do you reconcile this with cognitive neuroscience and learning processes?