I might add to it underpaying and overworking. On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Gillian Densmore <[email protected]>wrote:
> I might be seeing where this could be going but the general technical term > Dumb Stuff might be defiend as one or of the following: Bad manered > drivers, procstratinating on tasks,not willing to properly fund education > and science-just as examples. > > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Well, in my psychology, the answer to such a question takes the form of, >> “what is the larger pattern of which my dumb stuff is a part?” >> >> >> >> N >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Gillian Densmore >> *Sent:* Friday, May 18, 2012 6:09 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology >> >> >> >> Oh oh I have a potentialy unsolvable problem: how come people (me >> included) constantly do dumb stuff? >> >> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Newton famously said about action at a distance, "I frame no >> hypotheses". I take this to mean something like the following: >> >> "I completely agree with you that I haven't explained gravity. Rather >> I've shown that observations are consistent with the radical notion >> that all matter attracts all other matter, here and in the heavens, >> made quantitative by a one-over-r-squared force 'law'. On this basis I >> have shown that the orbits of the planets and the behavior of the >> tides and the fall of an apple, previously seen as completely >> different phenomena, are 'explainable' within one single framework. >> >> I propose that we provisionally abandon the search for an >> 'explanation' of gravity, which looks fruitless for now, and instead >> concentrate on working out the consequences of the new framework. >> Let's leave it as a task for future scientists to try to understand at >> a deeper level than 'action-at-a-distance' what the real character of >> gravity is. There has been altogether too much speculation, such as >> maybe angels push the planets around. Let's get on with studying what >> we can." >> >> I think Newton doesn't get nearly enough credit for this radical >> standpoint, which made it possible to go forward. And of course we >> know that eventually Einstein found a deep 'explanation' for gravity >> in terms of the effects that matter has on space itself. There are >> hints in the current string theory community of even deeper insights >> into the nature of gravity. >> >> Bruce >> >> >> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Russ Abbott <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > John, I like your gravity question. If this were Google+, I'd click its >> +1 >> > button. My wife, who studies these things, says that one of the >> > fiercest contemporary criticisms of Newton's theories was that they >> depended >> > on a mysterious (magical?) action at a distance. >> > >> > -- Russ Abbott >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
