Traditionally in the West we define knowledge as a justified true belief. But the experience of knowledge usually also requires understanding and a framework of connected pieces of knowledge.

Guess what machine learning lacks: understandability and a framework from which its statements of knowledge spring.

We might want to say that therefore ML doesn’t produce knowledge. But I think it’s going to go the other way as AI becomes more and more integral to our lives. AI is likely to change our idea of what it means to know something…

Continued at the Peter Drucker Forum

Be the first to comment »

So, you’re an academic, a researcher, a scientist … a serious person. But you’ve decided to write a trade book — a book for the general populous — to amplify the effect of your work. Excellent!

I edit the Strong Ideas book series for the MIT Press — books about the ways in which today’s digital technology is or may be changing how we think and behave. The readers are assumed to have no, or little, technical background, but the authors are generally academics and scholars.

This is the advice I give them at the beginning if they have not written for laypeople before.

The differences between academic and trade books

1. A trade book is for people who know much less than you do about your topic.
2. A trade book is for people who are much less interested in your topic than you are.

These two points are inseparable when it comes to structuring and writing your book. When writing for academics, you’re dealing with people who come to your book already interested in your topic and who think your book has something worthwhile to say to them…or perhaps people who feel they need to be able to list your book in their bibliography. Either way, they are already motivated to read it.

That’s not the case for trade book readers. For trade book readers, you need to promise them something…

The promise your book makes

The promise is what you tell prospective readers they will get out of the book. It’s why they’ll recommend it to their friends. The promise is not a statement of what the book is about but why the book will matter to the reader.

That promise should be manifest in the title and subtitle, the text on the inside flap of the book, the organization of your chapters, and even your writing style.

Hiding what you know

An academic book typically starts with an introduction that tells you how the book is going to unfold. That provides helpful scaffolding for people who are already committed to the book. But it’s usually a mistake for a trade book. To draw readers through the book, you should keep information from them so you can disclose it progressively.

The chapters should be a series of surprises. In that sense, a trade book often takes the form of a non-fiction narrative: it unfolds not in time, the way a murder mystery typically does, but in logic. (Which is also how mysteries unfold, now that I think of it.)

For that reason, it helps to provide plenty of signposts to remind readers where they are in the intellectual narrative and why you are talking about whatever you’re talking about

By the way, the combination of you knowing more than your readers and you being more interested in your topic than readers are initially means that, despite years of academic training, your second chapter absolutely should not be a review of the literature or the history of your field. [Exceptions may apply. But probably not.]

Your voice

Readers want to spend time with authors they trust and like. Because you know what you’re talking about, gaining their trust should happen easily. But knowing stuff isn’t enough. Whether they like you as an author largely depends on your authorial voice. Unfortunately, there are no formulas for being likeable, or else we all would be.

But there are some common sense ways to do this, or at least to avoid being disliked. For example:

• You’ll earn more of their trust by writing clearly and competently than by listing your credentials and accomplishments.
• Be generous about the insights of other authors.
• Don’t be mean about other scholars even if you think are dead wrong or total jerks. (There’s a high-risk, bravura/gonzo style of writing that contradicts this rule, but does it really make the world better?)
• Examples help not only for obvious reasons but because they can be an opportunity for you to provide the reader with a small “Aha!” jolt when you reveal what we can learn from them.
• If you’re going to be digressive — a charming way of expressing your personality and keeping people interested — put in lots of signposts so readers know where they are in the narrative or argument.
• Be prepared to over-simplify. Readers usually only need to know how a technical concept applies to the point you’re trying to make. If you feel bad about simplifying a concept too much, you can briefly note that “it’s actually much more technical than that” or put in a footnote to ward off colleagues looking for flaws because they’re envious of how clearly you write and how far you are spreading the important things that they and you know about the world.

Drafts

People’s writing processes are all very different, but they all involve more drafts than you’d like. In fact, having to write many, many drafts is a good sign.

The end

If you have reactions, responses, suggestions, criticisms, or expert opinions, please let me know: david [insert an “at” sign] hyperorg.com

The prompt for the illustration: We are looking over the shoulder of a very serious scholar in a darkened study with many books. It is the 19th century. But we see that the scholar is writing using an ultra modern computer. The computer and the screen are brightly lit unlike the rest of the room which is in candlelight. The screen shows a modern , colorful, crisp, and clear word processor with a document open. The gender of the scholar should be ambiguous and impossible to determine.

2 Comments »

Photo via Anton Diaz CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

 

It happened by accident to me. I came across one YouTube of him — I don’t remember which one — and then fell into another, and then into another. Now if I don’t stop myself, I’ll find myself falling into one Jacob-shaped hole after another, and then two hours later I remember what I was going to be doing. I even went to his Boston concert a couple of months ago, the first live concert I’d been to since Dylan’s Rolling Thunder Revue in 1975 in Toronto. (JC’s bond with his audience in the exact opposite of Dylan’s.)

 

Anyway, here’s the Intro Playlist:

 

This is an excellent one hour BBC documentary that I think gives a good overall view of why and how he’s special. It also will give you a sense of his genius-level multi-instrumentality, which the two songs below don’t highlight … although his guitar work in the next one is quietly astounding. (Hint: Always pay attention to his chord-work/harmonizing.)

 

Little Blue is a beautiful song from his new album. There’s an official video with him on multiple instruments (and Brandi Carlile!), but this version of him singing it with only his guitar and a small chorus I think is more affecting. By the way, the singers are simply fans who responded to his open invitation, not professionals. Also, in this version he turns them into a chorus by using hand gestures; that part is unrehearsed. (Leading his audiences in this way has become a signature part of his live concerts.)

 

Then there’s what I think is his magnum opus (so far): A version of a Bridge over Troubled Water. I’m not crazy about the original, but JC’s version of it I find exhilarating and moving. It’s purely vocal, with JC singing all the background parts. His 2-hour walkthrough of how he created it on his Mac makes you aware of the hundreds of  tiny decisions that went into it. And here’s a live version of it, with John Legend and Tori Kelly, that’s also astounding. JC is on a keyboard, called the harmonizer, he invented with Ben Bloomberg, an MIT Media Lab grad student, that turns what he’s singing into whatever keys he’s pressing. Also Tori’s runs were all written by JC, even though they sound like improvisations.

 

I hope you will long fall into your own Jacob shaped holes. And this is coming from someone who generally isn’t moved by music. (Some exceptions apply.)

Be the first to comment »

America is being run “by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.”  — J.D. Vance

I am truly excited, right down to my authentic work boots, by the tremendous response to my theory of voting rights. And despite what the lying radical left press says, I have even gotten strong messages of support from self-avowed cat-ladies who admit they are a waste of a womb. (Sorry, ladies. I’m a truth-teller.)

In response, I’ve decided to make public the full version of the Constitutional amendment I’ve been secretly working on for months. It’s, known as the V.A.N.C.E. System of Voting:

V stands for fair voting, in which the weight of your vote is determined by the stake you have in the future of this great country.

A is for “Advanced” because it is an advance over all other theories.

N is for “Nuanced” because it gets away from the simple-minded and unfair binary theory of voting according to which your vote either counts or it does not. Also, you see that I am open-minded about non-binary positions, although not when it comes to the sexuality of people or couches.

C is for “Counts” as in “How much does your vote count for?”

E is for “Equitable” because this is the only truly equitable voting system: If you have a family of, say, twelve then your vote deserves to count more than that of some self-centered cat-lady.

The Constitutional amendment that would make the V.A.N.C.E. System the law of the land spells this out in complete detail. Here’s an explanation that skips the fancy legal language so even you can understand it:

The key insight I’ve brought to the field of electoral philosophy is that the bigger stake you have in the outcome of an election, the more your vote ought to count. Simple and irrefutable!

But ideas of such crystalline purity still need mechanisms to make them real. The V.A.N.C.E. System provides one that is simple and, well, genius. It begins by saying that from now on, every voter’s vote has a weight calculated by the following considerations

Everyone starts out with a vote that weighs 1 pound.

Then we take the longest any American has lived, which is 119 years and 97 days. We call this the Knauss Max in honor of Sarah Knauss who passed away at this age in 1999. (The Knauss Max increases as Americans break her record.)

We subtract the voter’s age from the Knauss Max and add that to his (or her, at least until my next amendment) Vote Weight. So, if you’re 18, your Vote Weight starts off at 101. If you’re 75, its 44. That’s because you have a maximum of 44 years left to care about what the hell happens to this country.

Then we factor in the Child Care Bonus, which obviously has nothing to do with providing child care. No, it’s because, as any womb-using woman will tell you, if you have kids, you care more about what happens than if you only have a house full of cats or a couch with an oddly appealing indentation. So, for each child you have birthed and who still lives with you, you get 20 pounds of voting weight. Three kids at home? Your vote is sixty pounds heavier than your lonely next-door neighbor’s. (Meow.)

But there are a couple of complications necessary to keep this system completely fair.

First, if you’re raising children who never saw the inside of your womb, then you only get 5 more pounds per child. because, let’s face it, their futures don’t mean as much to you as someone who owes their life to your hubby’s Jesus seed.

Second, to be equitable ( see the “E” in V.A.N.C.E.), we have to factor in how many years each child has left. If you have two children, one 2 years old and the other 17 years old, then we apply the Knauss Max minus their ages to your Voting Weight. So, for the two year old the formula is (Knauss—age) – 2. That works out to an extra 177 pounds for you for the 2 year old and an extra 160 for the 18 year old.

I should have mentioned one other consideration earlier: the Loyalty Multiplier that gives 100 bonus pounds to each and every American citizen. If you are an immigrant, that number goes down by how old you were when you became a citizen, times 10. This reflects the fact that if you immigrated you have demonstrated that you lack the virtue of loyalty. Also, if you immigrated here, the chances are it was for any of three reasons. First, you love money more than your country. Second, it’s because you want to take a job away from a Black American. Third, it’s because you’re a kill-crazed drug dealer. Or all three.

Finally, there’s the E.L.O.N. (Economic Likelihood Of Nationalism) variable, which reflects the obvious truth that rich people have a much, much bigger stake in what happens to this country than poor people do: If you’ve got nothing, you have much less to lose than someone who could lose $20 or two hundred billion dollars.

So, the System says that we take a person’s Vote Weight as computed so far, and add to it the person’s annual income before tax breaks and deductions. So, if your Vote Weight comes to, say, 205, and your reported income is $22,000, your Vote Weight would be 22,205. And if you’re annual income is $100,000,000,000, your Vote Weight would be $100,000,022,205, which just makes intuitive sense.

Finally, as with any serious piece of research, I have to face some objections, no matter how dumb they are.

First, you — no, not you, but some anti-American radical leftist — might say that the poor have a bigger stake in their country than anyone since they depend on the government to help them out.

Shut up, stupid. There’s a difference between having a stake in America’s future and needing America to help you out. One is patriotic, the other is grifting.

The second objection is that if the V.A.N.C.E System makes sense for voting, why not for the economy? Clearly a poor person cares more about a dollar than a rich person does. So shouldn’t the poor person’s dollar count for more, and thus should buy more?

Hmm. I hadn’t thought about that. But it’s safe to say that it’s the sort of idea that cat-ladies find attractive since they’ve already created a communist, utopia for their lazyAF cats.

So, let’s go V.A.N.C.E system, and all hail the United States of America, the greatest shithole country in history!

1 Comment »