Controversial opinion: Most people don't think. Or don't think clearly. The next few thoughts are from ideas that I've developed together with Paco Tornay and Srdjan Santic on private chats (none of them are on twitter ☺ ).
Warning: I'm going to use short sentences, big generalizations etc. which is the style that I'm critisizing ☺ Bear with me. This is one of those 'stream of conciousness things that benefited from no editing. And the medium (twitter) begets lack of nuance ☺ Some parts of this are making it to an internal @DataScienceRet manual that anyone onboarding will read. Here we go...

Look at your past few decisions. If you are like me, they are based on some anecdote that someone else said (on the web) and he sounded trustworthy or very secure (strong opinions). Nuance doesn't sell in the age of twitter.


30% of people cannot kneel (they are too fat). This happens if you don't exercise.


Few people can think clearly. This happens when you don't read books. You cannot analyze if a statement follows from another, you don't check sources, you use anything but data to make a decision...

This is a caricature, of course. But what if we could all just read raw data?
From solid sources. Say tables. Not opinions. Imagine an alternative world where there's raw data for mostly anything you need (@oceanprotocol might be working on just that!). Imagine humans that don't get bored from reading tables.


Then we humans (still not acting rational) would use these tables, reflecting empirical data, to update our priors. In a very fluffy way, not the way Bayes rule suggest, mind you. Still, this parallel universe would be a far better place (hypothesis!). People would make better decisions, and the compound effect of good decisions early in life would produce better lives long-term. For everyone on earth.


Instead, we have the real world. Where we don't think, or don't think well. For example...everyone (me included) has some kind of prediction out there. Who is keeping the prediction makers accountable?
Even Garner, Forrester. Their business is to sell you predicitons. But noone gives a shit if their predictions are true. Not their competitors, not their clients. I find this perplexing. It makes me think they simply construct the world they want to see with their predictions, and maybe charge those who benefit from the prediction being true (Hype as a service; that's an idea if it doesn't exist ☺ ).


Worse, who is guilty of letting your thinking be influenced by those opinions/predictions? (that have zero checks!)


And I've done this, all the time. Now I'm researching people talking about clear thinking. and books. I've had one too many generalizations on twitter. Even PG does this in his (otherwise really thought provoking) articles.


He sounds authoritative, tho. It's an stylistic resource. And we copy him: fake authority by being very confident.


this is where I'm digging now. I was this close to abandon twitter, but I realize tribes are there... So catch 22. Linkedin is like twitter now. No space for nuance. The quality of thinking is... minuscule. In the age of IG, twitter.


nobody reads books. have you seen IG? Problems I see: (1) 1/4 of content is ads. (2) tiny pieces of content, where a fully reasoned argument not only doesn't fit, but it will ask some thinking from the spectator. Swipe up! To next thing where you don't need to think. It's either think or be entertained. What do you choose?


Instagram is designed for an attention span that... would make pigeons feel offended. If I say now 'for the attention span of a pigeon'

It's idiocracy allright:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/reviews?ref_=tt_urv

In the meantime, I'm thinking with friends on little quiet corners like whatsapp. Maybe I'm doing it wrong :)