<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Maybe so. JD Vance pivoted to what his people wanted to hear. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <gepropella@gmail.com><br><b>Date: </b>Monday, November 11, 2024 at 9:39 AM<br><b>To: </b>friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [FRIAM] hyperbole (was Re: How democracies die)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Right. And Dave agrees that the overwhelming majority of her content is good ... great, even. But take a look at the measures: views, likes, etc. And take a look at the frequency with which the clickbait (thumbnails and titles) changes over time. Steve's slow distancing matches my own, not really because of "the algorithm", but I actively started ignoring her. She's in the pipeline. If she doesn't change her trajectory, I predict she'll be an anti-woke warrior tribe member right up there with JD Vance ... maybe leaning more towards Scott Aaronson or Scott Alexander ... let's hope, anyway.<br><br>On 11/11/24 08:28, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br>> The video about how she failed at being an academic I think is informative. It isn’t a technical video – she has those too –one is not universal, but also not a implausible story about the experience about how it is to raise money to support research. A grad student might watch that and say to themselves, “Do I really want that life? Do I want to be this bitter?” “Maybe I should monetize videos of my cat on YouTube?”<br>> <br>> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of steve smith <sasmyth@swcp.com><br>> *Date: *Monday, November 11, 2024 at 8:16 AM<br>> *To: *friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com><br>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] hyperbole (was Re: How democracies die)<br>> <br>> <br>> glen wrote:<br>>> ...<br>> <br>>> The complaint against Sabine and many in the wacko pipeline is that <br>>> their wacko content gets more views. And more views means more money. <br>>> Her boring videos don't get as much traffic as her wacko videos. So <br>>> she's incentivized toward the wacko. She's not defying any rules. <br>>> She's caught up in the forcing structure, obeying the rule even if she <br>>> doesn't want to. And that means she *is* doing her job, profiting off <br>>> clickbait and misinformation. It's just not the job of an academic.<br>> <br>> When Sabine blossomed as an entertaining source of parallax on topics I<br>> was interested in I must have watched at least parts of at least a dozen<br>> of her pieces and appreciated, well, the *parallax* of it... but in<br>> fact, the thumbs and the titles and some of the content was in fact<br>> hyperbolic at least in style... and it got old and I rarely click<br>> through, though I think I still accept that if Sabine is "going on"<br>> about something it might mean there is a "there there" even if she isn't<br>> going to help me understand it straight.<br>> <br>> Which jiggers me sideways (slantweiz?) over to Emily Dickenson's poem:<br>> "Tell all the truth but tell it slant".<br>> <br>> What is it about language and truth which maybe sometimes needs to be<br>> "snuck up on"? Or is that just a romanticized misdirection?<br>> <br>> The various (coupled?) recommenders (Google News, YouTube, Ground News)<br>> in my world have finally come to marginalize her work with me, only<br>> tossing it up only when some combination of conditions occur. I want to<br>> describe it as the "trajectory of my attention intersecting some<br>> high-dimensional manifold" but this is even more incomplete in my minds<br>> eye than many of the things I share here already. I also want to (and<br>> therefore apparently am) overlay the idiom of fractality and attractors,<br>> as if the "sneaking up" has something to do with slowing down and being<br>> careful about the "trajectory" in this high-dimensional conceptual phase<br>> space?<br>> <br>> What is the "delta-V" of conceptual space? Is it a continuum, a metric<br>> space, or topological? I suppose I've gone "full slant" here... so I<br>> have to wonder what *my* forcing rules are?<br>> <br>>><br>>> On 11/9/24 14:52, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br>>>> Ah, she’s a scholar but not an academic. I think that would make <br>>>> DeepMind researchers not academics either, or researchers that work <br>>>> for organizations like Petrobras (even though they publish). That <br>>>> just says to me that academics aren’t hyperbolic in informal <br>>>> communication not because they fear for their credibility, but <br>>>> because they are afraid to antagonize the kind of social network that <br>>>> funds them. Graeme Smith comes to mind as someone that makes <br>>>> hyperbolic statements on social media relevant to his field but is an <br>>>> academic in the sense you mean.<br>>>><br>>>> Another reason I could see academics don’t speak freely is because <br>>>> they risk their rewarding gigs as advisors in the judicial or <br>>>> executive activities of government. Everyone has politics to <br>>>> navigate, but I appreciate it when people like Sabine defy the rules.<br>>>><br>>>> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <br>>>> <gepropella@gmail.com><br>>>> *Date: *Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 2:27 PM<br>>>> *To: *friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com><br>>>> *Subject: *[FRIAM] hyperbole (was Re: How democracies die)<br>>>><br>>>> Maybe my use of the word is too constrained. I tend to use it as I <br>>>> think Sabine (and Eric Weinstein and maybe Stephan Wolfram) use it. <br>>>> I.e. they claim they're not part of it. So why shouldn't I believe <br>>>> them? As in the people within the academy, *some* type of institution <br>>>> that combines teaching with research. That would include pretty much <br>>>> anything with the *.edu on the end. SFI is on the outer edge. <br>>>> Heterodox Academy is even closer to the edge ... or perhaps just <br>>>> barely outside of it. Something like Prager University is definitely <br>>>> outside of it. The *primary* aspect of my conception is <br>>>> grantsmanship, which is a hallmark of non-profit activities. If it's <br>>>> a for profit enterprise, it's difficult for me to consider it "the <br>>>> academy".<br>>>><br>>>> But I suppose I could loosen my definition and consider relatively <br>>>> independent science communicators like Sabine or Neil deGrasse Tyson <br>>>> as peri-academics (or maybe even para-academics). Then it would be a <br>>>> short hop to, say, fossil fuel lobbyists. There's some kind of <br>>>> slippery slope, here. And that's why I like to stick to grantsmanship <br>>>> for academicy stuff. (It also applies to other non-profits ... or the <br>>>> hunt for a sugar momma, even ... patronage. But academics, because <br>>>> they're also scholars, have a more sedate and systematic matrix to <br>>>> navigate.)<br>>>><br>>>> The other element that separates people like Neil deGrasse Tyson or <br>>>> Professor Dave or Angela Collier from people like Sabine is that they <br>>>> engage in less hyperbole. My experience with serious academics is <br>>>> they don't run around yelling things like "Science is Dying". <br>>>> Academics tend to be more measured, restrained, particular, and a bit <br>>>> boring. Of course, as they age out, they go a bit batsh¡t. It seems <br>>>> to me emeriti engage in more hyperbole than working academics.<br>>>><br>>>> So long story short: Sabine's not an academic because she doesn't <br>>>> spend her time writing grants. And she's not an academic because too <br>>>> much of her work product is hyperbolic.<br>>>><br>>>> On 11/8/24 22:33, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br>>>>> I'm still confused why you say Hossenfelder isn't an academic. <br>>>>> Scholar.google.com doesn't see it that way: Cited by 5,426. She <br>>>>> has recent publications.<br>>>><br><br><br>-- <br>ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ<br><br>.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..<br>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html>