Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 09/26/2013 10:29 AM:
A counterexample that comes to mind is investment strategy. Also, long ago I used to develop substantial amounts of Lisp for my Windows manager and Emacs. This was just to tune my environment, do automated filtering of e-mails, etc. Now I realize that I don't have the time or access to control the environments I work in, and it's mostly a waste.
If "mostly" simply means > 50%, then yeah. But even 1% investment into your generalizable efficacy can swamp a 49% waste in efficiency.
Keeping closer with the topic, I think some people often`classify' personal, but controversial political views. Helen Thomas comes to mind as a cautionary tale. Whenever an influential person speaks, especially a person in politics, they may choose to not speak to many sorts of topics. I accept that some politicians are quick on their feet and can modulate `at the drop of a hat', but I think it takes some planning too, at least for folks early in their career. They analyze their constituency, and build a dynamic rank ordering in their head of the top ten ways to go down -- some of these they must learn the hard way. Note I don't think this inhibition is healthy, or even particularly honest, but I think it occurs.
Alright. You win that one. 8^) A balance on the spectrum between pure situational facility and a dynamic selection amongst pre-constructed rules is probably the most robust. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Should have left him in the stream. Cooing at the smitten queen.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
