On 3/23/21 2:23 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Like all healthy communities, I'm glad to see continued "good natured > heckling" amongst the most vocal here. > > > On 3/23/21 2:06 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> If your are correct that the comment "self-comstrained" then I was fool to >> pay any attention to it whatsoever. Fools rush in... etc.
I think Dave prophetically argued (in the OP) against Nick's later claim to foolishness (see below). It's not foolish to pay attention to EricC's spandrel-like thread bending. It is a hallmark of nonlinear thinking. On 3/23/21 8:11 AM, Prof David West wrote: > This also means, that individual feature-traits — ... — cannot, and should > not be "explained" independently. To do so is to focus on the 'noise' and not > the 'signal'. Such efforts are the product of 19th century thinking and > unworthy of complexity scientists like yourselves. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
