There might be worthwhile ties to the information theoretic concept of "interestingness" here
Yeah I mean that's sometimes how it feels, like leaning into being interesting means not re-iterating NPR talking points. But it's weird cuz all the grounding for what's "interesting" or a hot take or whatever is the immediate social context. Murray Davis says "Interesting theories are those which deny certain assumptions of their audience, while non-interesting theories are those which affirm certain assumptions of their audience." So boringness is a kind of redundancy, a predictableness.
In information theory, any data that doesn't give you more insight, that you can't actually learn anything from, is not even considered information. Information is "a difference that makes a difference," something that changes how you understand or (more accurately) act.
That's gotta be Lyotard. Is it Lyotard??To the extent that science is differential, its pragmatics provides the antimodel of a stable system. A statement is deemed worth retaining the moment it marks a difference from what is already known, and after an argument and proof in support of it has been found.
Science is a model of an "open system," in which a statement becomes relevant if it "generates ideas," that is, if it generates other statements and other game rules. Science possesses no general metalanguage in which all other languages can be transcribed and evaluated. This is what prevents its identification with the system and, all things considered, with terror. If the division between decision makers and executors exist in the scientific community (and it does), it is a fact of the socioeconomic system and not of the pragmatics of science itself. It is in fact one of the major obstacles to the imaginative development of knowledge.
probably a few other existing semi relevant threads but here we go: I don't think you're bloodthirsty enough for revolution. You're kind of exactly the person who should lead something like that and that's why you never will. You'll be shoved out the way by all the power mad cunts and...www.dissensus.com
This is such a big part of the problem, and why I'm most interested in understanding the selection mechanisms that rule our society (some designed, some evolved/naturally occurring). Nobody in their right mind would get into politics these days, so the positive feedback loop works its way into hell.
part of my job is to make these appeals, this language game... asking people to fund researchThis is such a big part of the problem, and why I'm most interested in understanding the selection mechanisms that rule our society (some designed, some evolved/naturally occurring). Nobody in their right mind would get into politics these days, so the positive feedback loop works its way into hell.
One useful concept here is the Sir Philip Sidney game. We have a common expression equivalent in the US, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease." You end up in competitions of exaggerated need, with the reward (grant money? institutional attention?) going to whoever is the best actor, the most melodramatic, the most delusional.