Let me try again. I do my work in pubic. Just like some medieval craftsmen worked their craft on the street, for passersby to observe. I’ve said since I started working in public that this new method of research and development in public is an experiment. IMO it’s been a successful one.
Why?
The economy of research has changed dramatically because of social media. I use the public as ‘test subjects’. Social media has made running tests on test subjects infinitely cheap, even if it remains extremely time consuming to exhaustively test any property of human behavior.
It’s hard for observers who do not understand what I am (we are) doing, to grasp that it’s “basic scientifc research”. Search the Institute archives for ‘king of the hill games”. Running these games produces demonstrated behavior that cannot be created in a traditional academic setting with volunteer test subjects, or with surveys that depend on self-reporting. My methodology consists of conducting dozens to hundreds of adversarial arguments to incrementally test human behavior, and compare the evidence to the existing research in the cognitive sciences. In doing so I created a unified, consistent, correspndent, logic of first principles (first causes) from the physical to the biological to the emotional to the cognitive to the behavioral disciplines. It’s the competition for survival from falsification that I use to discover those first causes. It’s brutally time consuming.
If you want the ready-to-eat intellectual sausage, then wait for us to publish the work. Until then, we are allowing the public that’s interested to watch the intellectual sausage being made. It’s messy. It’s verbose. It’s a huge scope covering almost every discipline of human knowledge, it’s via-negativa so it’s counter-intuitive, so between the fact that it’s novel, it’s counter intuitive, it’s formal rather than narrative, and the scope of material is vast, it requires study – study on the scale of a four year techical degree.
Because of this high investment in ‘the first science, the science of decidability’ we do not anticipate widespread interest in learning this material without the “Social Proof” provided by the demonstrated ability of early adopters to provide decidability and solutions to questions and problems no other discipline can accomplish with equal consistency correspondence clarity and parsimony. The overwhelming evidence so far is (a) that we are producing these people (b) accelerating the pace of doing so (c) that we have the only articulated explanations of and solutions to the crisis of the age – which is the completion of the termination of the agrarian age and the traditions that constitute our historical memory.
ie: Advanced math is hard, and almost everyone ignores it because they know there are people who specialize in it, make use of it, so we don’t have to. Likewise, you don’t, few people do, understand the law as a discipline, and far fewer still, understand legal theory. But because of social proof we leave that to the people who can use advanced skills, and we weait for ‘general principles of lower precision’ to trickle down to the rest of us in the population.
In these videos, are working through the content in an effort to produce a first draft that can be understood in a STEM demographic in universities. During this effort we have been discovering content areas that are not yet sufficiently disambiguated and integrated into the overall formal system – this subject (female lying) especially.
This effort, over the past year, has accomplished this goal: we finally know how to explain the work. And we have identified the few areas that required greater precision and clarity. And we have removed my previous ‘anger and frustration’ from the work, converting it from a scientific polemic to a neutral science.
The next scope of work will be to reduce it to a consistent narrative that is easier for ordinary folk to follow. We have recently come to understand we can reduce the foundations to grade school level of understanding that can be taught like arithemetic, reading, and simple sciences.
There is nothing that we are doing here, producing this work, that is anything procedurally different from any other iterative cycle of sketch, outline, chapter outlines, chapter sketches, and first draft. It’s the same process any work passes thru. Instead, the difference is in the content, in that it’s closer to mathematics or programming in that it has to be internally consistent logic where each assertion is predicated on the prior premises etc. So it’s not like writing a standard non-fiction, or fiction explanatory narrative. It’s far more like a manual for writing the programming langauge of human behavior.
If you want essay, philosophy, ideology, or theology, or god forbid, industriral revolution pseudoscience of the left, then there is plenty of that in unscientific, what we call ‘literary’ (plato’s) form. This isn’t that. This is science (research) that produces a set of first principles (causes) that behave according to a certain logic (operations) that allow us to test (Falsify) by construction (chain of causality) all human statements (truth claims), given the marginal indifference in the system of measurement (sense, perception, prediction, attention, recursion, action) capable by the human life form (embodiment).
So take advantage of watching the work or don’t. But the hard work of research, development, and intellectual craftsmanship, is different from the work of mass production of digestible consumer information.
