Join Readup to read with @jramey1971.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

When someone says, “Science teaches such and such,” he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, “Science has shown such and such,” you might ask, “How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?”

It should not be “science has shown” but “this experiment, this effect, has shown.” And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments–but be patient and listen to all the evidence–to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.

On the pleasures of browsing a Blockbuster:

You could be aimless in a Wordsworthian way. You could meander. This aisle, maybe, or that one. Couples paralyzed by indecision stood around like Vladimirs and Estragons.

From reading deeply, you gain experience as well as knowledge: you gain from reading literary works in all their unique particularity. You live other lives, undergo other ways of being in the world that, while differing from your own, speak, nonetheless, to your condition and that of the people around you.

when we don’t acknowledge these unconscious desires we are controlled by them and left unable to move forward.

We can also be controlled by shadow beliefs. As in the story of Rumpelstiltskin though, once we name the belief or desire, it loses its power over us.

Systems thinking not only erases the boundaries between the points of view that define the sciences and professions, it also erases the boundary between science and the humanities. Science, I believe, consists of the search for similarities among things that are apparently different; the humanities consist of the search for differences among things that are apparently similar. Science and the humanities are the head and tail of reality—viewable separately, but not separable. It is for this reason that I have come to refer to the study of systems as part of the “scianities.”

. . . any public discussion that both reviles the idea that black people are less intelligent than others while also lustily demanding that it’s “racist” to submit black people to cognitive challenges is hopelessly incoherent.

As for the Gates and Buffets of the world: Aderinokun said some of Bitcoin’s critics may have valid points to debate, around, for example, the environmental impact — but she takes issue with Western elites saying there is no upside, or that it is a ponzi scheme, or that it is just for fun.

This has made me want to read more. I was not previously aware that FDR and the New Deal were spoken of in such hushed and reverent tones.

“The New Deal matters,” Rauchway writes, “because we all live in it; it gives structure to our lives in ways we do not ordinarily bother to count or catalog. When we imagine the end of the world as we know it, the world we are thinking might end is the one the New Deal built.”

I couldn't help noticing that against the backdrop of AI and other advancements Harari essentially recommended the ancient maxim 'know thyself'.

Per the article, there are two important factors that separate the pandemic of 1918 from 2020:

1. The social distancing measures were lifted "after two to six weeks".
2. The euphoric nationwide response to the end of WWI would have eclipsed and absorbed any post-pandemic celebration.

The decade ahead may not be roaring, but I think it could at least be humming. :)

they were tapping into the potency of religious martyrdom. The emotions generated by the history and iconography of the Church had now been repurposed for a modern armed campaign.

Each success story is, in its own way, a type of grooming. These posts lure and mislead young people into believing that they can sell their sexuality online as a side hustle without the stigma, and that it is always empowering and never exploitative.

It turns the stomach to think about the many lives that will likely be ruined.

Certainly the author makes a strong case that "two d*cks" with a pencil and ruler should never be allowed to disrupt ancient boundaries.

The article's grim warnings may come off as too extreme. But if you can see past that, it will at least help you better understand the perspective of millions who don't trust today's would-be philosopher-kings.

It was good to get a sociologist's perspective on this topic. Churches in general have long been too squeamish to adequately address sex as a good and important part of the Christian's life. No wonder there is such confusion. And as we've seen, along with confusion there comes the potential for great harm.

Ultimately, it won’t be easy for Democrats to accommodate both the world’s most avaricious capitalists and grassroots radicals.

There’s a difference between listening to someone’s experience and tying oneself to their entire worldview. Challenging someone’s viewpoint should not be taken as invalidating their feelings. You can empathize with a person’s struggle and hear their concerns without automatically deferring to their perspective.

It must be clear, then, that much of what can seem confusing about many black people’s take on racism is due not to manipulativeness but to filling a hole, in a way all humans seek to in assorted ways.

I think the author made a sufficient case for deep literacy to (at least) be considered as a factor in historical movements.

Of particular interest is the suggested correlation between the rise of current populist movements and the percentage of active voters who can think past the "surface tension of a tweet".

Also, the author's lens of "Awakenings" in US history is a useful thought tool.

This article reinforces, for me, the need to read the best books over and over. Today, we don't need to memorize to preserve information, but to make it part of us.

This goes hand-in-hand with knowing when to end the convo. Many tactful stratagems here.

What I get from this is that definitions can get in the way of learning.

"When you think you know something, that is the most perfect barrier against learning."

• Frank Herbert, Dune

the lockdowns demonstrated that governments can impose without constitutional constraint virtually any restrictions to address a perceived crisis.

Kotkin proposes a scenario that is not at all implausible.

Taleb posits that when we declare ourselves members of a group, we feel compelled to adopt group beliefs and behaviors. Beliefs are just additional boundary lines to separate 'us and them'.

Kids have "the greatest education engine ever" -- innate curiosity. When parents don't allow time for curiosity, it's like pouring molasses into the engine.

Posits similarities between pro-Sparta Athenian elites and pro-China US elites of today.

After reading this I'm thinking maybe it should be called The Art of Avoiding War.

This articulates why many of us may have been feeling a vague sense of loss over the past year.

Close relationships were long thought to be the essential component of humans’ social well-being, but Granovetter’s research led him to a conclusion that was at the time groundbreaking and is still, to many people, counterintuitive: Casual friends and acquaintances can be as important to well-being as family, romantic partners, and your closest friends.

Interesting thesis. I'll be chewing on this for a while.

To survive or benefit from the evolving structure of digital capitalism, people must in turn become corporations, marketplaces, platforms, or memes. Because those are the only things allowed to thrive.

It's an older article, but timely. (Full disclosure: I own a few mBTC. More for curiosity than anything else.)

"[Bitcoin] fulfills the needs of the complex system, not because it is a cryptocurrency, but precisely because it has no owner, no authority that can decide on its fate."

Even if only one or two of these were heeded, I know I'd be better off.

Elite US institutions continue to grow in power despite the erosion of the people's trust. This article explores why.