PeopleStuff - Thought Overflow...

Theoretical Certainty: a story

When doing a startup, you talk about it everywhere, with everyone. At least I do.

I went hiking today on a familiar trail; but the monsoons had changed things and I found myself going up and down the canyon looking for the turnoff.

A couple sitting on a rock seemed friendly - we started chatting. The man, older, was a theoretical physicist with strong opinions. He seemed sure where the trail should have been, that the monsoons had wiped it out.

He was also sure that I was a socialist, after I explained a bit about my ideas for work weighted shared governance. Then he expounded on why only top down models could possibly work given his experiences in Poland and Germany. I'm not sure what the woman thought as she couldn't seem to get two words in edgewise. He seemed to conflate countries and companies, and to be arguing against many things I did not say.

I cannot prove yet that bottom up accountability can beat a top down authoritarian structure, so I cannot say with certainty that he was wrong in his assertions about corporate models. He definitely was wrong about the hiking trail, though. I found the

when is an argument logical? and why that requires an intimacy

Not in the sense of correct or incorrect conclusions, but in the sense of when is an argument or discussion between two people actually a logical argument? Only if it takes place in a single axiomatic space. (which is rarely the case!) In order to actually have a logical argument, both people have to agree on a single space, or set of initial assumptions. Given the real world of complex inner spaces, this probably means that one person must enter the other's space to explore it and look for inconsistencies and bring up real world data to explain. Which is why this sort of real argument is necessarily very intimate.

But the type that often occurs, where each person is talking from within their own space, is both illogical and frustrating.

Someone has replayed your snap! Instant gratification for the long term.

I am not the snapchat type. I prefer books, code, and UIs that let me drive, think about what I'm doing, and build things over time. But with two of my kids off to college and Snapchat their preferred method of communication, I'm snapchatting.

What strikes me about the app, is the emotional bang for the buck it provides. Low overhead - down in the tenth-of-a-second range - as well as nothing to organize later, nothing to store, and no definite expectation of response makes the 'cost' of using the app in terms of time, effort and responsibility almost zero. The gratification of getting a snap unexpectedly (usually they seem not to be part of an ongoing conversation) or of seeing that one of your friends or family has viewed or saved your snap is fairly high, especially when its a photo of a distant family member.

Spontaneity is another plus. Silliness is encouraged both by the app itself (filters, face swaps, etc) and by the sense of impermanence. One might hesitate to post a dog-whiskered, clown-nosed version of oneself to a online photo album, but the sense that this is like a voice conversation that will disappear, encourages fun

Subscribe to Thought Overflow...