Once we start to drill down and build up, the practical value of “real facts” and “good models/theories” is suddenly massive—and we see that engaging in scientific inquiry is more useful and advantageous than engaging in coalitional politics.
I don’t necessarily agree with the Wired article, but even if the scientific method is obsolete…
David Ng

Hugely important point, and something that we do NOT do today very often — and why what you are doing with Vertical Learning is so valuable (and why the culture of “learning” could use a sizable change). In the present environment, incremental changes (epicycles to the Ptolemaic universe) are good enough. No need for “value change” is desirable enough, especially if it involves shedding the social protection of the “coalitions.” What I fear is that there are a twofold process going against this: that we are shedding institutionalized protection for the individuals is making the coalition increasingly more valuable so that people do not want to rock the boat; and so much of learning is incentivized to become short term “usefulness” oriented that restructuring the models is given a short shrift (I keep pointing to the Wired article not because I agree with it or like it, but because it captures a lot of sentiment towards learning these days, which, personally, I find deeply frustrating and disturbing — but I’ve seen enough of it to know it is important to be aware of.)

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.