Before we go there, let's talk about other ways of thinking
📏Linear thinking
It's the process of following a step by step progression where a response is received before another step is taken
This week on @ness_labs Collector to Creator Course, @anthilemoon shared on ways we can connect our ideas
Here are my notes on how to connect our ideas 👇
Before we go there, let's talk about other ways of thinking
📏Linear thinking
It's the process of following a step by step progression where a response is received before another step is taken
If A, then B, then C
Linear thinking is thinking of processes in a straight linear fashion.
It's fast and effective when you know all the data and processes, but it leads to linear bias and first-order thinking
It's the process of following and expanding on the implications of first-order impacts.
For example; A may result in B and C
It's better than first-order thinking by exploring more options, but it rarely leads to novel connections between ideas
🐍🐀
The Cobra Effect happened in India under British Rule and in Hanoi under French rule.
For example, connecting B and C may improve A
Networked thinking leads to new ideas, but is unreliable in solving problems
One method is called Idea Sex, where you combine 'mate' ideas together to create idea 'babies'
It's originally coined by @jaltucher
https://t.co/cVZURsfnRA
Creativity is a result of a combination of other ideas.
Original ideas don't exist, everything new is a remix of what has been done before.
Take a look at how @Airbnb used combinational creativity to create their logo
Here's my summary on that book
https://t.co/JkjUxGybTW
1. ⛓Chaining
Chain 2 ideas together by asking yourself:
How can idea A impact idea B? You can also make longer chains.
"Fast food on blood glucose levels" + "Blood glucose levels on heart disease" = "what are the effects of fast food on heart disease?
Ask yourself, what do idea A and B have in common?
For example, what do writing and cooking have in common?
You May Also Like
Facebook originally a CIA program called "LifeLog".
LifeLog, via DARPA, terminated on Feb 4th, 2004.
Facebook was launched on Feb 4th, 2004.
Many of the LifeLog team became execs at FB.
Zuckerberg is a figurehead.
CIA allowed Cambridge to help Trump win
https://t.co/enzOXDCogV
Pentagon Kills LifeLog
LifeLog, via DARPA, terminated on Feb 4th, 2004.
Facebook was launched on Feb 4th, 2004.
Many of the LifeLog team became execs at FB.
Zuckerberg is a figurehead.
CIA allowed Cambridge to help Trump win
https://t.co/enzOXDCogV
Project: Lifelog
— Robert Horan (@Robby12692) December 13, 2018
Started by DARPA in 1999, the goal of Lifelog was to create a database on civilians without their knowledge, and track everything they do.
The project "ended" on Feb 4th, 2004.
Facebook began the exact same day.
The CIA funneled tens of millions into Facebook. pic.twitter.com/r7hwF0v9kh
Pentagon Kills LifeLog
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
