Hello Argo, I think that you have hit upon something, the "Professional Amateur". It sounds like a fun journey, but I think that maybe it goes way deeper than you have explained.
a) Professionals get their expertise through years of experience, it's their whole career. They have a job, that allows them to stay with it. Who pays them? Someone who can afford to mount that type of endeavor. That employer will have a series of definite interests, that the professional will sooner or later have to reflect. He sure can't go against them.
You might say that a University has the interest to only discover deeper truth. It's neutral. But that University is also funded, in addition to their tuition. Donors may start small, and stating the earnest objectives of also discovering truth. But then comes the time when their donations are large and the institution has become dependent on them for its operating costs. Then if you don't change this policy, our donations will have to decrease. That institution has been subverted.
It happens 1,000's of times. Fire that professor or we'll cut you off of our charities. Professionals in all fields have become compromised.
Only Amateurs can afford to be honest! That is what you are creating, a reservoir of HONESTY.
b) You say "being productively wrong". But it is not your job to explain things. Your job is to ask obvious but ignored questions, make a hypothesis and force the so-called experts to explain it.
Society has been transformed into being "outward looking" and only based only on comparison. So we have abdicated our responsibility TO THINK. We're no longer human, but mechanical. (I hope someone will come by and oil your joints?) You said the same thing:
Quote
" I will not abdicate my ability to reason and create; to my more qualified peers. I will not surrender my say in society because I am of the wrong class. Most importantly, I will not subject myself to the mere derivation of the past rather than a conjecture of the future. I will be wrong, fearlessly. The journey is the destination. The mere act of thinking - not only within your expertise, but without it, is the prize."
"The goal is to one day be able to understand the world around you – to see the currents of current events, rather than feel adrift in an endless ocean of chaos. By introducing you to mental models of the world, walking through them with you, I hope to equip you with the ability to formulate your own, and be better off for it."
Well said.
c) With regard to promising a certain output, one article a week? Well, I would see how it flows. Sometimes there is a lot to say. It would be cool if new articles came out of questions from the comments. A discussion. I see you recommend Simplicius. He handles current events in a hostile environment. Point is, all his past posts are obsolete. Who goes to "un-current events"? So he doesn't need to organize.
Your posts won't go obsolete, and could remain interesting for some time. But they do get flushed through and buried. On my site I try to keep them available with a table of contents, and find them in the archive. Also I don't travel too far-afield in subject matter. So it is easier to keep them organized. (Substack lacks a lot on this, if they would allow you to keep posts in subject folders that would be fantastic.) But you can do like Simplicius, and start another stack, like his Dark Futura. Although I think he missed on it, because there is too much on the DARK and not enough on the FUTURA. That's my first impression anyway.
d) You are also a "Thinker", so you want people to follow your reasoning. Not necessarily convince, but to get people to question. So how do people "Think"? You talked about the architecture of the mind and riding the waves of emotions. What creates emotions anyhow? Do they have a life of their own? Do we just have to bear the burden of them?
These are first post subjects that could create the ground work for people to understand your reasoning trajectory. This is where I went on my site, to build a repository of mutual understanding.
That's just the way that I did it. From here, yes, I can talk about anything. I am not going to include built-in obsolescence though. For those subjects, let Simplicius and others like him handle it. I will start other blogs to get into any very different subjects. And I probably will not tie them together or relate them. Each will have a life of its own.
I am in to see what's the next thing you come up with.
B) "Being productively wrong" was written in the mind of being a catchphrase or a slogan to get the noggin joggin'. In school in particular, we are judged on whether we're in accord with already-decided knowledge. Being "wrong" in this case means disagreeing or finding issue with that knowledge.
C) I do read Simplicius quite consistently, and it's because of them that I decided to go with the relatively shorter articles. Reading their articles turned into a chore for me, so I actively cut mine up into sections.
D) I think emotions are only a burden insofar as they control you rather than you understand (not necessarily control) them. Well-tempered, they provide the ability to point you to where you should be going, where logic's role is to build and find the right way to get there.
I also think it is wise to limit writing to specific subjects. It may go long or not, depending on the background material required. Someone like Simplicius writes by date; today such and such happened, so he includes all of today's major topics. Not so good for discussion purposes, although he does get a lot of discussion. You just select the topic that you want to comment on.
If I have positive emotions that add to my sense of accomplishment, of course I follow their lead. I am talking about emotions that waste my energy with self-doubt. When you say "control emotions" most people will interpret that as to suppress them. In other words, emotions are already there, they're a given , and we have to deal with them.
I am saying there is a way to discover how most emotions are generated. Then you don't author those that will limit you. You don't pick them up and run with them in the first place. In a way it is controlling (what appears). It's not so difficult. But not yet part of the human tool kit. That's why I suggest writing about it.
I think there is a way, but not one that I am sure can be shared across people. I'd need to think about it a lot. Probably involve dedicated journaling or diary-ing to make sure you know which emotions strike and in response to what events.
In essence, I know what my process is, but I feel that it's not an approach I can generalize to everyone. Then again, talking about why things work for me so that other people can find their own way is my whole thing, so...
that goes on the backburner, to come out when it's good and ready.
Definitely a superpower and a reason my peers have usually considered me pretty competent. I don't see this essay as a justification, really, but more as a way for me to iron out my existing thoughts, and to drop them somewhere I have a record of them. Far more durable than half-remembered conversations with friends and loved ones, which is where most of my ideas come from.
Everything in the murky swamp known as the idea drawer probably has its roots in some long-forgotten conversation.
Oh, for sure. Embracing this skill (to different levels) can do wonders, and is probably better for many. I do think there are some who both genuinely prefer and enjoy hyperspecialization, and to them I say... thanks for putting up with my questions!
So, there's an interesting twist in here too. Have you ever taken the Meyer's Briggs Personality test? If you have, I'd love to know, if you haven't nab this one here. https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test
I'm curious if you are an "N" or an "S". (I've got an inclination)
Hello Argo, I think that you have hit upon something, the "Professional Amateur". It sounds like a fun journey, but I think that maybe it goes way deeper than you have explained.
a) Professionals get their expertise through years of experience, it's their whole career. They have a job, that allows them to stay with it. Who pays them? Someone who can afford to mount that type of endeavor. That employer will have a series of definite interests, that the professional will sooner or later have to reflect. He sure can't go against them.
You might say that a University has the interest to only discover deeper truth. It's neutral. But that University is also funded, in addition to their tuition. Donors may start small, and stating the earnest objectives of also discovering truth. But then comes the time when their donations are large and the institution has become dependent on them for its operating costs. Then if you don't change this policy, our donations will have to decrease. That institution has been subverted.
It happens 1,000's of times. Fire that professor or we'll cut you off of our charities. Professionals in all fields have become compromised.
Only Amateurs can afford to be honest! That is what you are creating, a reservoir of HONESTY.
b) You say "being productively wrong". But it is not your job to explain things. Your job is to ask obvious but ignored questions, make a hypothesis and force the so-called experts to explain it.
Society has been transformed into being "outward looking" and only based only on comparison. So we have abdicated our responsibility TO THINK. We're no longer human, but mechanical. (I hope someone will come by and oil your joints?) You said the same thing:
Quote
" I will not abdicate my ability to reason and create; to my more qualified peers. I will not surrender my say in society because I am of the wrong class. Most importantly, I will not subject myself to the mere derivation of the past rather than a conjecture of the future. I will be wrong, fearlessly. The journey is the destination. The mere act of thinking - not only within your expertise, but without it, is the prize."
"The goal is to one day be able to understand the world around you – to see the currents of current events, rather than feel adrift in an endless ocean of chaos. By introducing you to mental models of the world, walking through them with you, I hope to equip you with the ability to formulate your own, and be better off for it."
Well said.
c) With regard to promising a certain output, one article a week? Well, I would see how it flows. Sometimes there is a lot to say. It would be cool if new articles came out of questions from the comments. A discussion. I see you recommend Simplicius. He handles current events in a hostile environment. Point is, all his past posts are obsolete. Who goes to "un-current events"? So he doesn't need to organize.
Your posts won't go obsolete, and could remain interesting for some time. But they do get flushed through and buried. On my site I try to keep them available with a table of contents, and find them in the archive. Also I don't travel too far-afield in subject matter. So it is easier to keep them organized. (Substack lacks a lot on this, if they would allow you to keep posts in subject folders that would be fantastic.) But you can do like Simplicius, and start another stack, like his Dark Futura. Although I think he missed on it, because there is too much on the DARK and not enough on the FUTURA. That's my first impression anyway.
d) You are also a "Thinker", so you want people to follow your reasoning. Not necessarily convince, but to get people to question. So how do people "Think"? You talked about the architecture of the mind and riding the waves of emotions. What creates emotions anyhow? Do they have a life of their own? Do we just have to bear the burden of them?
These are first post subjects that could create the ground work for people to understand your reasoning trajectory. This is where I went on my site, to build a repository of mutual understanding.
That's just the way that I did it. From here, yes, I can talk about anything. I am not going to include built-in obsolescence though. For those subjects, let Simplicius and others like him handle it. I will start other blogs to get into any very different subjects. And I probably will not tie them together or relate them. Each will have a life of its own.
I am in to see what's the next thing you come up with.
.
A) Agreed.
B) "Being productively wrong" was written in the mind of being a catchphrase or a slogan to get the noggin joggin'. In school in particular, we are judged on whether we're in accord with already-decided knowledge. Being "wrong" in this case means disagreeing or finding issue with that knowledge.
C) I do read Simplicius quite consistently, and it's because of them that I decided to go with the relatively shorter articles. Reading their articles turned into a chore for me, so I actively cut mine up into sections.
D) I think emotions are only a burden insofar as they control you rather than you understand (not necessarily control) them. Well-tempered, they provide the ability to point you to where you should be going, where logic's role is to build and find the right way to get there.
I also think it is wise to limit writing to specific subjects. It may go long or not, depending on the background material required. Someone like Simplicius writes by date; today such and such happened, so he includes all of today's major topics. Not so good for discussion purposes, although he does get a lot of discussion. You just select the topic that you want to comment on.
If I have positive emotions that add to my sense of accomplishment, of course I follow their lead. I am talking about emotions that waste my energy with self-doubt. When you say "control emotions" most people will interpret that as to suppress them. In other words, emotions are already there, they're a given , and we have to deal with them.
I am saying there is a way to discover how most emotions are generated. Then you don't author those that will limit you. You don't pick them up and run with them in the first place. In a way it is controlling (what appears). It's not so difficult. But not yet part of the human tool kit. That's why I suggest writing about it.
.
I think there is a way, but not one that I am sure can be shared across people. I'd need to think about it a lot. Probably involve dedicated journaling or diary-ing to make sure you know which emotions strike and in response to what events.
In essence, I know what my process is, but I feel that it's not an approach I can generalize to everyone. Then again, talking about why things work for me so that other people can find their own way is my whole thing, so...
that goes on the backburner, to come out when it's good and ready.
What you just described is a polymath and I agree. It's a great place to be! Here's a good intro to the Polymath.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/the-bane-of-specialization-defense
Reading what you wrote, the difference is mostly in marketing. The substance is actually the same!
Exactly. I hadn't come across the term Polymath until about 6 years ago.
And it's also a superpower, not something to justify. I mean into it because it gives me a skill set and a frame of mind that few have!!
Definitely a superpower and a reason my peers have usually considered me pretty competent. I don't see this essay as a justification, really, but more as a way for me to iron out my existing thoughts, and to drop them somewhere I have a record of them. Far more durable than half-remembered conversations with friends and loved ones, which is where most of my ideas come from.
Everything in the murky swamp known as the idea drawer probably has its roots in some long-forgotten conversation.
Sorry, wasn't suggesting you were justifying, but so many people do or feel like they *should* specialize. Yet I say we should embrace it!
Oh, for sure. Embracing this skill (to different levels) can do wonders, and is probably better for many. I do think there are some who both genuinely prefer and enjoy hyperspecialization, and to them I say... thanks for putting up with my questions!
So, there's an interesting twist in here too. Have you ever taken the Meyer's Briggs Personality test? If you have, I'd love to know, if you haven't nab this one here. https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test
I'm curious if you are an "N" or an "S". (I've got an inclination)