Attempts to Explain #1
The Feynman Technique In Action
“In order to talk to each other, we have to have words, and that’s all right.”
— Richard Feynman
We read a whole lot, but reading doesn’t necessarily mean understanding, so we’re hoping we can try and exorcise some comprehension by sharing some of our takes on the takes we’ve found on the Internet most recently. It’s the Feynman Technique in action. Here’s the go:
Identify a subject you want to learn about
Attempt to explain it to someone who has no prior knowledge
Identify the gaps in your knowledge — the bits you struggle to explain
Research further, refine your explanation
The nice thing about this technique is it’s always beta; it submits to the Popperian ideology of Fallibilism; that we’re always coming from a position of ignorance, that we’ve only ever got an incomplete understanding of what is or isn’t true, and that we should be looking for the data that proves our ideas, theories and arguments wrong instead of that which proves us right.
So, here’s our attempts to explain some stuff we’re curious to know more about.
For things that we’re constantly referencing and rate our explanations of, here’s the <$ Anti-Library.
How To Remember What You Read
We like this list a lot — consuming and regurgitating information is not the same as comprehension — but we’re quibbling with points 2 and 3. Speed-reading is absolute bullshit, yes, and those Blinkist apps are no substitute for reading a book.(One of the great things about books is 1) that they’re long, and 2) that they’re not connected to the internet; the upshot being that you have to spend more time with an idea and ruminating on how it applies to your own life.) But when used correctly both techniques are really great at giving you more structure to what you’re learning and engaging your curiosity. Just plodding through a book word by word, page by page is a terrible way to absorb information.
Some further reading on reading makes this point well. Being mindful of what reading mode you’re in helps you to structure your reading in a way that gets the most out of it.
There are 6 million AZ jabs just sitting there.
People are hesitating for a 1/2,000,000 risk of clotting (read that again, that’s a one in two million chance) and because they’re worried that their shot won’t be recognised abroad as part of a “vaccine passport”. The game here is to get out of lockdown, which at this rate requires about 60–70% of the country being vaccinated to Aus’ standards. So, you know, get a vaccine.
Inside is a meta-critique of White Privilege, as told by quite a privileged white guy. Which is probably still a good thing.
Watch the video essay here.
Our fave reference for everything right now, Bo Burnham’s Netflix Special “Inside”, which everyone agrees is pretty incredible. F.D Signifier has some pretty interesting reflections of Inside as White-Liberal-Performance-Art, and the whole wider White Wokeness thing and how it’s probably a good thing on aggregate even though it can be pretty grating/insufferable to view as a POC.
The thing about his argument is that he is, in turn, speaking for white experience too, which is effectively the same problem in reverse. Which raises the question: what’s the way we can have conversations about privilege that’s constructive? Can liberal white people actually take a look at themselves and understand how they’re part of an unfair system without “seeing the whole problem through the lens of their own self-actualisation”? Is it reasonable to expect POC to continue putting themselves in vulnerable and/or laborious positions to “move the conversation forward”?
We’re guessing that maybe it’s OK to inhabit someone else’s perspective - this is empathy, after all - as long as you’re receptive to being wrong about it. Because what do we have other than conversation? And what’s the point in telling someone something if you don’t believe they can somehow understand you when you do?
You can change the world with your actions
We’re big fans of optimism; the idea or feeling that you can change the world with your actions. For this reason, we believe optimists shape the future: those who think they can are more likely to be motivated to follow through and do. But for civilisations and societies to progress, large groups of people to trust one another, and that trust also requires optimism.
So the first movers need to be optimistic enough to think they can make the world a better place through their actions, and their societies need to be optimistic enough to trust each other to make shit happen. Nice.
Some other points we like:
There’s also some cool shit in here about being a good ancestor, and a really cool riff on Deutsh’s idea of infinite problems = infinite opportunities for creativity and improvement.
There’s a good little redux of Enlightenment Now’s core argument that talks to why things seem worse than they are, and some stoic ideas on optimism and resilience, which I really love.Ends with a pretty optimistic outlook on the next 25 years — again, looking at the potential of the technologies available to us. Not often you get people being optimistic about this stuff.
So, that’s that. What do you reckon? Disagree? Got something to challenge? Got something else for us to read? We’re all ears, eyes, nose and mouth.
Attempts to Explain
Made with Love + Money.
Copyright © 2021
All Rights Reserved
Love + Money Agency
”Melbourne, VIC”
-
Love + Money acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land in which we work and pay our respects to Elders past, present, and emerging.