On the topic leap 2018-11-18 Facebook
- I heard an interpretation the other day that “in a low context conversation, it’s good not to leap, and in a high context conversation, it’s good to leap,” but it doesn’t feel right.
- efficiency
- My interpretation is that “leaps” are not good, but efficiency is. When a math book skips formula expansion, it is not a leap, it is a saving. Those who think it is a leap are not up to the level of receiving the compressed format, so they have to grow a decoder in their brain by working with their own hands.
- What is difficult for a beginner to grasp in Go is that the game’s important “live or dead” is told in this compressed thinking, and the beginner cannot understand why he is dead when the expert is “dead” at the right moment. However, it is not a leap of faith; it is obvious that there is no way to live if you search for all patterns with logic.
- parallel
- I told my wife that there is another pattern, which is parallel.
- Multiple topics are discussed simultaneously. The exchange of information per unit of time is made more efficient by the fact that all participants share the belief that “an utterance is not necessarily a response to the immediately preceding utterance. This is also efficiency.
- This, too, to someone who doesn’t share the premise, “the story isn’t connected” or “the topic is jumping all over the place.”
- We share not a single strand of yarn, but a knitted piece.”
- Knitting? Woven?” Masks.
- No immediate response is required, and there is no obstacle to speaking what you want to say immediately because not everyone assumes that a certain statement will be responded to instantly.
- Conversely, those who hold the assumption that an utterance is a reply to the immediately preceding utterance, once an utterance is made, all utterances other than replies to it are suppressed
- This is the “single thread.”
- People on a single thread get “Oh, I have something to say about what I just said, but the topic has changed.
- However, when this group is mixed with people who think that there should be an immediate response to their utterance, it is a blow to their self-esteem when another topic is discussed without being responded to their utterance.
- In chatting, communication is established in which both parties do their best to output. Because the speed of reading is faster than the speed of writing.
- To keep the brain running at full speed, products want to be output immediately, not at full speed because if you don’t get them out immediately and stop them in memory, they cost more to retain.
- Concepts similar to Thinking While Writing
- 2021-11-17 Scrapbox is good for storing this “output that is not a one-dimensional thread” One-dimensional text.
- search
- If the goal is to explore, you don’t need to be connected to output a lot. This, of course, does not connect the story, since the assumption is shared that they don’t need to be connected. If someone who doesn’t share the premise sees this, it would appear to be a “leap.”
- In this context, one might use “leap” in a positive sense. An idea without a leap is not a new idea, he said.
- If the flow is supposed to be “first make the leap, then make sure there is a connection between the two,” it is a silly act to propose an idea that is clearly connected from the start.
- Related People who memorize the whole thing can’t dig in….
- I’m looking for another diagram I remember writing.
- Related Can you spot innovative talent in advance?
- I don’t even understand myself why this (leap).
- I see, the scale of “topic connected” and “topic near and far” is not objectively shared, but exists subjectively within each individual.
- People who are confident in their subjective measure will act accordingly. Therefore, they do not use their brain resources to think about whether or not the listener will feel that they are making a leap. On the other hand, those who lack confidence try to speak according to the other person’s scale.
- It is not so much a matter of whether or not they have their own style, but it is also a matter of what kind of communication style they use. For example, if they are allowed to speak freely, they will talk without regard to whether others are following them, but if they are tutoring or trying to persuade someone, they will try to understand the level of understanding in the other person. If you are tutoring or trying to persuade someone, you would watch the level of understanding in the other person and try to speak at a speed that matches it.
- Instead of considering “whether the topics are connected” a priori, the style is to first think “I don’t care whether the topics are connected” and “whether the topics are connected in the first place is agnostic because it is subjective and inherent in the receiver” and then output, and if the receiver thinks that the topics are not connected, the If the recipient thinks that there is no connection, then the connection is clarified after the fact by the recipient’s questioning.
- In the latter case, the recipient needs to ask questions.
- Some types of people consider the latter “subjective and agnostic” to be “not agnostic but inferable from various information. This is Differences in axiomatic systems.
- I had an idea that when you create a chatbot, you could use the number of likes or whatever as an input for the evaluation of it, but this is a situation where the evaluation scale is external.
- Even if they seem to be telling different stories, they are just different branch parameters, and when abstracted, the structure is sometimes the same.
- So again, the measure of “what is the difference topic” differs from person to person, and as I think I wrote in The Intellectual Production of Engineers, the ability to generate ideas is related to the ability to find a connection between seemingly unrelated things.
- I don’t know if this is relevant, but I find it interesting that there are “people who are not interested in others but pretend to be interested in others”.
- Why “pretend to be interested in others” if you are assuming that others would probably prefer someone who is interested in others?
- A type of communication that does not presuppose others in the act of speech? There is a style.
- I don’t often do this with audio, but I do with writing. The reason is that the written output lasts longer than the memory in my brain.
-
Not everyone assumes that a certain utterance will receive an immediate response.
-
I had the idea of using the number of likes or whatever as an input for the evaluation of the chatbot, but this is a situation where the evaluation scale is external.
- A story about this, and can point to it. This is not possible for memories in the brain.
- Every utterance must have a unique ID in order for all utterances to be pointable resource locator.
- It is worthwhile to output regardless of whether or not a listener exists because
- It just so happens that the format of that output is the same format as that of the conversation.
- The human IO is so hefty that the only way to get that output is
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/飛躍 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.