It just needs David Attenborough narrating
06.03.2026 10:39
👍 1
🔁 1
💬 0
📌 0
It just needs David Attenborough narrating
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
Is there any other way?
I will need to think harder about this. I’ve not followed your work, I’m afraid, but find this all really interesting and actually very relevant to my day job. Are the references in this paper the best ones to find out more about your Worldview concept?
This should have said “model of the world AND themselves in it”. 🤦♂️
… Ascribers are of course also human, and their ascriptions types of belief which need unpacking in the same way. Which I suspect isn’t just an added complexity, but fundamental to really understanding what we’re doing when we talk about individual psychology. But I’ll stop there.
… are not out ascriptions of beliefs etc not a kind of model of a model? I ask in part because you talk about choosing the scripting that best fits when more than one is offered, which suggests a very rational ascriber using evidence only to align their own standing states to reality. Whereas…
Sparked lots of thoughts… But you don’t need me to spew out thirty years of private philosophising in one thread 😬 so just one for now. Is there any sense in thinking of the Worldview as itself along to a person’s ‘model’ of the world in themselves in it? If so…
This is fantastic, for many reasons. One of them being that it’s entirely intelligible to someone like me who’s not read any philosophy for thirty years.
Husband is on jury service. Bloody immigrants, coming over here and trying our criminals.
Amen
In fairness, that’s closer to my mental image of Heathcliff than Jacob Elordi.
Excellent indeed.
I have written a piece articulating what I believe is a reasonably new position on AI, or at least one extremely underrepresented in the discourse, and I hope people will read it. The full piece is behind the New Scientist paywall, but I will share some snippets www.newscientist.com/article/2516...
Really good. Thanks for flagging. And great to hear you’ve a new book coming.
Should biology put complexity first? www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti... - excellent essay by @philipcball.bsky.social. I would add epistasis to polygenicity and pleiotropy as a ubiquitous and fundamental phenomenon, not some optional complication that we can try to account for afterwards
To be clear, Bart is relating points of view, not necessarily his own. But goodness, the fact that some in academia think this. It's a prima facie case for compulsory humanities courses, to learn what writing is for and how it works. (And thinking, for that matter.)
Also enjoyed. I could kind of get a gist at 1200, and at the very end that he said it was all true. But basically understanding falls off a cliff after 1300. While Spanish husband was ok to around 1500 with a bit of prompting eg different ways of writing S. Early - middle - modern…
I'm SO tired of people looking for "the neuroscience of X" (meaning uninformative neuroimaging pictures) when *the psychology of X* is right there, doing a perfectly good job...
Okay, this is quite outstanding from Bedford Council.
The drunk uncle theory.
You don’t argue with the casually homophobic uncle at Thanksgiving dinner to change his mind; you argue so that the closeted cousin at the kids table knows there’s safe people and better possibilities out there
it's like we inherited our 'self' from 'ourselves'. i mean that's the 'healthy' intuition connected with feeling like a 'self'. it can be an open question. but it *is* a question. or, as you say in the book, a mystery.
and it touches everything that has to do with pedagogy.
‘We inherit our “self” from “ourselves”’ reads to me like a wonderful encapsulation of a (robust and sensible) social constructivist take on the self. Not sure if you meant it to be: but I’m stealing it anyway! :)
Just added this to my WordPress site, so it's free to read.
homunculusmusic.wordpress.com/2026/02/14/e...
Writing a book worth reading *should* take time. It should take effort. The crafting of it and the thinking in it go hand in hand. And the rewards, for both the author and the readers, come from that effort. That the AI bros don't understand this is disturbing and revealing.
V happy with with this on @bookshelfie.bsky.social: book-shelfie.com/review/livin...
First double espresso: the cannon from which I am fired into the day ahead. (Your way sounds better.)
Amen
Heaven forbid anyone should be surprised, delighted, or otherwise impassioned, by something unexpected.
So much mainstream book publishing works on this model too. How many books are positioned as 'for fans of [author X]' or 'if you liked [author X], you'll like this'?
More Alice in Oxbridge if you ask me…