Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Andy Matuschak
How should we evaluate tools for thought? There's no simple metric, as far as I can tell. The best tools change your paradigm anyway, so your old metrics (books printed per year?) aren't what matter. Here's one (vague, but focusing): how much meaning is unlocked on the margin?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Andy Matuschak 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andy_matuschak
That is, you can talk about Mathematica's value by asking how many students use it, or if it helps their test scores, or by timing people solving problems using different tools. But its most significant value is in producing marginal profound mathematical insights.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Andy Matuschak 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andy_matuschak
It's all a variant of Kay's "Sistine chapels per generation," I guess! But the marginal meaning doesn't have to be a grand edifice: Twitter's most powerful metric as a tool for thought is in creating transformative (off-platform) personal connections.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Andy Matuschak 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @mairwatching
It's not clear how to get leading indicators for any of this! As far as I can tell, you want to be on the lookout for very strange stories, like casually making an animation system in Smalltalk at age 12. Do any of you have good leading indicator stories here?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Giacomo Randazzo 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andy_matuschak
What would be the meaning unlocked on the margin for spaced repetition systems? Something like insights when looking at old cards/cards mixed together? Or something like knowledge compounding?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Andy Matuschak 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @RAN3000
The metric that matters for SRS is not anything about memory or the cards themselves, but the marginal contribution to some purpose with intrinsic meaning for you. That might be powerful insights in one's original research or whatever; it's probably not what happens "in" Anki.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Connor 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andy_matuschak
Great epistemic tools serve as maps which provide dictionaries to move between different worlds/perspectives. I.e. you have a set of rules where you can use an understanding of one thing to understand something else that is completely different from that thing.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ron Lusk 19. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Cmansoo @andy_matuschak
I have a friend who says we know everything by analogy, "using an understanding of one thing to understand something else".
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Joel Chan, owning it while I'm honing it 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andy_matuschak @benbendc
Provocative question! This q is quite similar to what we grapple with in research. Agree there is no simple metric, need to triangulate. NSF-sponsored creativity support tools workshop (led in part by ) had this as a major conclusion:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Joel Chan, owning it while I'm honing it 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andy_matuschak @benbendc
For me, one focusing point is the extent to which the conceptual space expands. So we should look for qualitative rather than quantitative shifts (or if quant, looking for changes in the function, not just slope).
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
George Singer 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andy_matuschak
One can find dimensions along which transformative Tools for Thought (TfT) are *significantly* better. For example, Mathematica's (i) documentation has 10x the reach, (ii) its code is 2x-10x more concise, and (iii) its conceptual reach is 2x-10x broader than the "competition".
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"