Finding nourishment vs. identifying poison An Article by Austin Kleon & Olivia Laing austinkleon.com A useful analogy for what [Sedgwick] calls ‘reparative reading’ is to be fundamentally more invested in finding nourishment than identifying poison. This doesn’t mean being naive or undeceived, unaware of crisis or undamaged by oppression. What it does mean is being driven to find or invent something new and sustaining out of inimical environments. I would like to adopt that line as a mission statement: “To be fundamentally more invested in finding nourishment rather than identify poison.” Because you can identify all the poison you want, but if you don’t find nourishment, you’ll starve to death. Poison sniffers hopereadinggoodness
Coevolution and the bad take machine An Article by David R. MacIver notebook.drmaciver.com So when you have a bad take machine, you get the following processes: They make a bad take. People are outraged and talk about it. The bad take machine likes it and does more of that behaviour in future. If, on the other hand, they make a take and nobody cares, they do not get reward and the behaviour is selected against. The behaviours drove the spread of the outrage replicator, and the outrage replicator provides the selection mechanism for the behaviours. Thus, via the spread of our outrage on Twitter, we have operant conditioned the bad take machine into producing worse takes. Which is to say, it's bad on purpose to make you replicate it. How to write a high-engagement tweetA bad tweet is like a deepfake of an idea mediaanger