Is this an argument against Twitter due to its inherently truncated context and ambiguity of meaning? That's probably just my prejudice. More likely it exposes that Twitter and other social media depend on some unstated shared assumptions (or sort-of-shared, which is problematic) about what is going on and how we are to interpret conversations.
I'd say it's more an argument to be clear about what Twitter (and similar) can and can't do. There is a big difference between the organic communities that form there around particular interests (and so have shared assumptions) and the broader 'public square' style debates where there is a lot of misinterpretation (sometimes deliberate).
I'd say that all human communication depends on shared assumptions, just that social media complicates it as everything is now on 'broadcast to the world' mode.
I'll have to think about specific examples, but I've made the broader point before. It's not that far from your musings on the role of AI in policy advice - the local, contextual nuance is often crucial but AI struggles at it.
On reflection, this also may be an argument against the the way many big consultancies and business schools have worked. A global dataset can be useful, but it rarely tells us what to do in this particular situation. And global best practice isn't always best here, now and today.
I read The Discarded Image by CS Lewis a long time ago, but it focused on the cosmology of the Medieval world rather than their interior attitudes to truth.
If you've read my older posts, they point out that we always rely on some worldview or theory to live in the world. in other words, we always believe something without justification. In our world, it tends to be 'scientific' facts.
Is this an argument against Twitter due to its inherently truncated context and ambiguity of meaning? That's probably just my prejudice. More likely it exposes that Twitter and other social media depend on some unstated shared assumptions (or sort-of-shared, which is problematic) about what is going on and how we are to interpret conversations.
I'd say it's more an argument to be clear about what Twitter (and similar) can and can't do. There is a big difference between the organic communities that form there around particular interests (and so have shared assumptions) and the broader 'public square' style debates where there is a lot of misinterpretation (sometimes deliberate).
I'd say that all human communication depends on shared assumptions, just that social media complicates it as everything is now on 'broadcast to the world' mode.
What you say is true.....maybe.
The AI point is very interesting. Worth exploring with some specific examples.
I'll have to think about specific examples, but I've made the broader point before. It's not that far from your musings on the role of AI in policy advice - the local, contextual nuance is often crucial but AI struggles at it.
On reflection, this also may be an argument against the the way many big consultancies and business schools have worked. A global dataset can be useful, but it rarely tells us what to do in this particular situation. And global best practice isn't always best here, now and today.
Thanks for reading!
I read The Discarded Image by CS Lewis a long time ago, but it focused on the cosmology of the Medieval world rather than their interior attitudes to truth.
If you've read my older posts, they point out that we always rely on some worldview or theory to live in the world. in other words, we always believe something without justification. In our world, it tends to be 'scientific' facts.