[FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Sat May 6 13:10:26 EDT 2017

On funding Pre-K, Joe writes:

"anything would be better than nothing"

>From a parent's perspective, if there are whole categories of support services that are inadequate or collapsing perhaps the best thing is not to live here, or if the means are sufficient, use private services.

>From a city planner's perspective, putting together these services seems hopeless without predictable and sustainable revenue.    So why waste time on these little one-sie two-sie efforts if the will just isn't there in the community?

To me this failed effort was a Hail Mary that was a symptom of a deeper problem.

Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Joe Spinden <js at QRi.us>
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 10:52:54 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

The talk of who went to what school seems beside the point.

The benefits of Pre-K seem indisputable to me.. As do the benefits of reduced sugar consumption.

I did not focus on the benefits of Pre-K vis-a-vis the proposed tax because I was never convinced the administration could competently determine how to administer the receipts.  But, since Martinez is trying to gut education in NM, anything would be better than nothing.

Nor do I consider it elitist to advocate for improved health.  If some reduced their sugar consumption because it cost more, that would not be a bad thing.

Separately, the idea that Michael Bloomberg spending $1MM of his own money -- with no financial benefit to himself -- to support the tax here is somehow equivalent to the soda distributors' spending large sums to protect their own profits is ludicrous.  Bloomberg is a genuine billionaire who should be commended for his willingness to spend his own money to advocate for causes he considers beneficial to all.

Joe

On 5/6/17 9:44 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
Let's summarize.  I said I wish people would focus on the benefits of pre-K education rather than the economic impacts of the tax and the effects on diet.  I mentioned that my wife, who went to graduate school at the Harvard Ed School, is a big proponent of pre-K.  Merle said that I missed the point and that Jeff Skilling and Jared Kushner's father also went to Harvard.  I said that Ted K went to Berkeley to make the case that having alumni in prison is irrelevant.  Merle says it's not.

My wife hates being mentioned in this context. Let me tell you a little more.  When she was at Harvard she worked with Jonathan Kozol to improve educational opportunities for Puerto Rican toddlers in South Boston.  In Pittsburgh she worked in a therapeutic Headstart program as head teacher to offer pre-K education to high risk kids whose mothers were schizophrenic. They were 3-4 years old and at least one of them witnessed the murder of her mother. They were mostly African American and arrived at school very hungry.  They ate at school.  This was done under the auspices of the University of Pittsburgh Psychiatry Department.  There's more but...

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 6, 2017 9:15 AM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

Frank writes:

"Which notorious person went to which university?  Why?"

It’s a question of fairness and consistency relative to values, not a question of correct vs. incorrect.

Here are two more personal experiences which I doubt I really need to give but I will for completeness.

1. A disruptive technology is reported in a peer-reviewed journal which I argue is worth considering.   I provide background (cited papers), and my colleague skims over the affiliations over the authors of those papers rather than reading the abstracts.

2. Our team arranges a meeting with a possible funding source and have a pitch prepared with preliminary results and working prototype code.    First thing the person does is flip to the section with the staff bios to see which universities they attended.

I could give many more examples of this kind of authority-based selection that I see every day.   I'm not arguing that there is nothing to this approach, or that it is complete ineffectual.   It depends on what the deciders are optimizing for.   One thing they could be optimizing is to ensure their collaborators are presentable and demonstrate a baseline of intelligence, and certain breadth and depth of knowledge.

However, when such a person that otherwise would passes muster, puts out a document that starts from fairly common premises to surprising conclusions, that chain of reasoning might be subject to consideration.  Sure, if there is more context, like knowing in retrospect that the person was guilty of murder, then that may or may not cause them to discard consideration of the argument.    For me, it makes me more interested in understanding the motives and reasoning and to make sure I convince myself I have an idea of where they lost it.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--
Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170506/d10a69ff/attachment-0002.html>