|
@farrarscott | |||||
|
I'm not sure I conceptualize twitter in that way at large... perhaps there's a difference in how it might best be used and how it gets used on a population level.
I might make personal connections. I might also get Inceptioned to act or think different politically.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
|
17. sij |
|
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?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
|
17. sij |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
|
17. sij |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||