<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (Vaguery)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from Vaguery</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4046264"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://somatosphere.net/2021/how-whiteness-works.html/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/LHT-02-2020-0043/full/html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.richard-hall.org/2019/06/07/new-book-project-the-hopeless-university/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com/2021/02/discontinuous-reading.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10814-020-09147-9"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08359"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.publicbooks.org/experiments-in-feral-futuring/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.14258"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/4/65"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.molbiolcell.org/doi/10.1091/mbc.E19-03-0147"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=2353"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.unemployednegativity.com/2019/07/what-deleuze-and-guattari-get-wrong.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://aaronzlewis.com/blog/2019/07/25/metaphors-we-believe-by/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://medium.com/@belover/prostitutes-in-the-bible-7d6404f0efe8"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ianwelsh.net/economics-as-cultural-warfare-the-case-of-adam-smith/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.zoeonthego.org/2019/03/18/round-and-round-we-go/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/28/how-blind-reverence-science-obscures-real-problems/?noredirect=on"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ladyscience.com/blog/archive-of-hate-ethics-of-care-in-the-preservation-of-ugly-histories"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2018/05/privacy-security-ethics-computer-sciences-judische-physik/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01862"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2018_Spring_Weatherby.php"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://medium.com/quietstars/sturgeons-biases-a40037acd16a"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/19/post-work-the-radical-idea-of-a-world-without-jobs?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://longreads.com/2017/12/05/the-consent-of-the-ungoverned/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://electricliterature.com/when-bad-men-define-good-art-a54c736494e9"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://hookandeye.ca/2017/09/21/why-cant-we-be-our-whole-selves-as-academics/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://theconversation.com/the-internet-of-things-is-sending-us-back-to-the-middle-ages-81435"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://uncannymagazine.com/article/let-me-tell-you/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2989189/the_hidden_environmental_impacts_of_platform_capitalism.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://fromphdtolife.com/2013/02/03/scholarship-and-life/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://crookedtimber.org/2017/08/11/from-a-logical-point-of-view/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://newrepublic.com/article/143004/rise-thought-leader-how-superrich-funded-new-class-intellectual"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.publicbooks.org/the-problem-with-philanthropy/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://newrepublic.com/article/141663/united-states-work"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://suburbdad.blogspot.com/2017/03/thoughts-on-nordic-theory-of-everything.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/programming-forgetting-new-hacker-ethic/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-world-as-representation.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://itself.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/worthy-opponents/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://hyperallergic.com/115200/thinking-about-art-practice-and-the-role-of-compromise/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chronicle.com/article/The-Professor-Is-a-Drag-Queen/234357/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.trevorowens.org/2016/07/but-thats-not-preservation-notes-on-preservations-divergent-lineages/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.03490#"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.wordsinspace.net/wordpress/2016/06/28/small-moving-intelligent-parts/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://amasad.me/2016/01/03/overcoming-intuition-in-programming/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2015/08/the-sad-death-of-free-market-pessimism.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://feministkilljoys.com/2015/06/25/against-students/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://commonstransition.org/michel-bauwens-the-transition-will-not-be-smooth-sailing/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.cringely.com/2015/06/24/the-u-s-computer-industry-is-dying-and-ill-tell-you-exactly-who-is-killing-it-and-why/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://strangehorizons.com/2015/20150615/valentine-c.shtml"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=19371"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-death-of-internet-pre-mortem.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17916"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0629"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/on-its-head/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/excess-and-instability/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-genius.html?smid=tw-share&amp;_r=4"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/too-beautiful-to-be-real/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://notesonatheory.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/culture-of-smartness/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2014/01/01/free-as-in-agent/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7224"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://al3x.net/2013/12/18/bitcoin.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://itself.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/my-power-is-made-perfect-in-weakness-on-institutional-breakdown/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2013/11/unavoidable-failure.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://pro.gigaom.com/blog/a-reworking-of-work/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://blog.chabris.com/2013/10/why-malcolm-gladwell-matters-and-why.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2013/09/the-management-question.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://the-pastry-box-project.net/allen-tan/2013-august-22/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.rsablogs.org.uk/2013/enterprise/kid-job-career/"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4046264">
    <title>The i-Frame and the s-Frame: How Focusing on Individual-Level Solutions Has Led Behavioral Public Policy Astray by Nick Chater, George Loewenstein :: SSRN</title>
    <dc:date>2023-02-10T13:39:03+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4046264</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[An influential line of thinking in behavioral science, to which the two authors have long subscribed, is that many of society’s most pressing problems can be addressed cheaply and effectively at the level of the individual, without modifying the system in which individuals operate. Along with, we suspect, many colleagues in both academic and policy communities, we now believe this was a mistake. Results from such interventions have been disappointingly modest. But more importantly, they have guided many (though by no means all) behavioral scientists to frame policy problems in individual, not systemic, terms: to adopt what we call the “i-frame,” rather than the “s-frame.” The difference may be more consequential than those who have operated within the i-frame have understood, in deflecting attention and support away from s-frame policies. Indeed, highlighting the i-frame is a long-established objective of corporate opponents of concerted systemic action such as regulation and taxation. We illustrate our argument, in depth, with the examples of climate change, obesity, savings for retirement, and pollution from plastic waste, and more briefly for six other policy problems. We argue that behavioral and social scientists who focus on i-level change should consider the secondary effects that their research can have on s-level changes. In addition, more social and behavioral scientists should use their skills and insights to develop and implement value-creating system-level change.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:several public-policy cultural-assumptions cultural-norms government systems-thinking sociology what-gets-studied-gets-done</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:9ebff0323415/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:several"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:public-policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:government"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:systems-thinking"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:what-gets-studied-gets-done"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://somatosphere.net/2021/how-whiteness-works.html/">
    <title>How Whiteness Works: JAMA and the Refusals of White Supremacy | Somatosphere</title>
    <dc:date>2021-09-12T11:24:39+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://somatosphere.net/2021/how-whiteness-works.html/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This insight is key to understanding the JAMA podcast. It helps us make sense of why Livingston, the host, spends most of the first minute professing ignorance. “Going into this interview,” he says, “I didn’t understand the concept” of structural racism. Some 20 seconds later, he doubles down: “Given that racism is illegal, how can it be so embedded in society that it’s considered structural? As a child of the sixties,” he reiterates, “I didn’t get it.” During this introductory segment, Livingston also mystifies racism, sneering at the idea that it “somehow” influences people’s possibilities, and introduces the conversation as “structural racism for skeptics.” 

These professions of ignorance, limited understanding, and skepticism are not virtuous. They are made possible by reigning white supremacy. As Mills foretold regarding such claims of ignorance, Livingston’s “nonknowing is not the innocent unawareness of truths to which there is no access.” Instead, it is “a self- and social shielding from racial realities that is underwritten by the official social epistemology.” Or, in this case, by the official journal of the American Medical Association.

To appreciate what is remarkable about Livingston’s self-avowed ignorance, just imagine if the podcast had been about anything else. Could Livingston possibly have begun other episodes by expressing his skepticism about osteoarthritis, admitting that he “didn’t understand the concept” of glaucoma, or confessing that he “didn’t get” the pharmacologic management of tobacco cessation (all recent topics on the podcast)? Of course not. It would have instantly undermined his credibility. Yet bearing only the credential of whiteness, Livingston can safely claim ignorance about racism, casting doubt on its reality, because his (implicitly white) audience will do the same.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>racism cultural-assumptions systemic-racism rather-interesting</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:4c830cd84a0e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:racism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:systemic-racism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/LHT-02-2020-0043/full/html">
    <title>Augmented intelligence technology. The ethical and practical problems of its implementation in libraries | Emerald Insight</title>
    <dc:date>2021-06-27T10:02:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/LHT-02-2020-0043/full/html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The subject of the article is the concept of augmented intelligence, which constitutes a further stage in the development of research on artificial intelligence. This is a new phenomenon that has rarely been considered in the subject literature so far, which may be interesting for the fields of social sciences and humanities. The aim is to describe the features of this technology and determine the practical and ethical problems associated with its implementation in libraries.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>libraries tools rather-odd cultural-norms cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:397db06633bd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:libraries"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:tools"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-odd"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.richard-hall.org/2019/06/07/new-book-project-the-hopeless-university/">
    <title>New book project: The hopeless university | Richard Hall's Space</title>
    <dc:date>2021-06-20T11:04:56+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.richard-hall.org/2019/06/07/new-book-project-the-hopeless-university/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The University has become a place that has no socially-useful role beyond the reproduction of capital, and has become an anti-human project devoid of hope. It projects and protects a condition that is irredeemable. It is hopeless in all senses, and this reflects its inability to respond meaningfully with crises that erupt from the contradictions of capital, including that between capital and climate. Yet in its maintenance of business-as-usual, the University remains shaped as a tactical response to these contradictions.

The book describes and analyses this position against the terrain of higher education (HE) in the global North. It does so in relation to the ways in which the University has been re-engineered in relation to the law of value. This process of subsumption situates the University inside a transnational geography of accumulation. This changes the very idea of the University, and what it means to work inside the Academy, such that they are emptied of political, democratic content, and instead reorganised around surplus. The University has become a key site for reproducing the separation of polity and economy.

...]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture universities pedagogy activism rather-interesting sociology cultural-assumptions scholarship</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:9d644282f3da/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:universities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pedagogy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:activism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:scholarship"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com/2021/02/discontinuous-reading.html">
    <title>Laudator Temporis Acti: Discontinuous Reading</title>
    <dc:date>2021-05-22T20:05:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com/2021/02/discontinuous-reading.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Only certain productively perverse uses of the book have transformed it back into a scroll, most notoriously "gripping" novels or "page-turners," where the teleological drive from page to page mitigates against dipping about or turning back (although not, in the case of the unbearable suspense of a mystery, from skipping forward to find out "whodunit"). When cultural critics nostalgically recall an imagined past in which readers unscrolled their books continuously from beginning to end, they are reversing the long history of the codex and the printed book as indexical forms. The novel has only been a brilliantly perverse interlude in the long history of discontinuous reading.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>cultural-assumptions books quotes aha-yes reading-habits disorder-as-default</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:c0ff3a9071e4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:books"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:quotes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:aha-yes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:reading-habits"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disorder-as-default"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10814-020-09147-9">
    <title>Killing the Priest-King: Addressing Egalitarianism in the Indus Civilization | SpringerLink</title>
    <dc:date>2021-04-24T10:50:41+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10814-020-09147-9</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The cities of the Indus civilization were expansive and planned with large-scale architecture and sophisticated Bronze Age technologies. Despite these hallmarks of social complexity, the Indus lacks clear evidence for elaborate tombs, individual-aggrandizing monuments, large temples, and palaces. Its first excavators suggested that the Indus civilization was far more egalitarian than other early complex societies, and after nearly a century of investigation, clear evidence for a ruling class of managerial elites has yet to materialize. The conspicuous lack of political and economic inequality noted by Mohenjo-daro’s initial excavators was basically correct. This is not because the Indus civilization was not a complex society, rather, it is because there are common assumptions about distributions of wealth, hierarchies of power, specialization, and urbanism in the past that are simply incorrect. The Indus civilization reveals that a ruling class is not a prerequisite for social complexity.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>anthropology cultural-assumptions cultural-norms political-economy academic-culture rather-interesting via:mymarkup egalitarianism rethinking-basics</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:204e86fc0494/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:anthropology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:mymarkup"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:egalitarianism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rethinking-basics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08359">
    <title>[2104.08359] In Defense of the Paper</title>
    <dc:date>2021-04-20T13:27:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08359</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The machine learning publication process is broken, of that there can be no doubt. Many of these flaws are attributed to the current workflow: LaTeX to PDF to reviewers to camera ready PDF. This has understandably resulted in the desire for new forms of publications; ones that can increase inclusively, accessibility and pedagogical strength. However, this venture fails to address the origins of these inadequacies in the contemporary paper workflow. The paper, being the basic unit of academic research, is merely how problems in the publication and research ecosystem manifest; but is not itself responsible for them. Not only will simply replacing or augmenting papers with different formats not fix existing problems; when used as a band-aid without systemic changes, will likely exacerbate the existing inequities. In this work, we argue that the root cause of hindrances in the accessibility of machine learning research lies not in the paper workflow but within the misaligned incentives behind the publishing and research processes. We discuss these problems and argue that the paper is the optimal workflow. We also highlight some potential solutions for the incentivization problems.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture publishing rather-interesting sociology cultural-assumptions cultural-norms science-communication</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:6bedbf50e6f9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science-communication"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.publicbooks.org/experiments-in-feral-futuring/">
    <title>Experiments in Feral Futuring | Public Books</title>
    <dc:date>2020-11-15T11:48:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.publicbooks.org/experiments-in-feral-futuring/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[What we realized is that a feral futuring lies at the heart of Superflux’s work, which we have previously identified as a sort of jugaad approach to futuring. By combining strategies of speculation with hands-on experimentation, bodging, building, and crafting, we invite multiple actors to not just experience a possible future but also to test the tools to proactively tackle future challenges. This material manifestation of cobbled-together assemblages can become a catalyzing force for people to imagine things they would not have been able to imagine otherwise, and, therefore, act upon that imagination. Participant Lucia Dubacova says, “It feels that everybody’s trapped in this division of really wanting to make change, or contribute to a change, on one hand. On the other hand, there is so much pressure from society and from the outside to keep running and keep fulfilling an agenda—because there are plans we made a year ago, or two months ago. I feel this kind of battle is somehow paralyzing for people in the end.”
]]></description>
<dc:subject>futurism rather-interesting cultural-assumptions reflection life-in-the-time-of-chaos welcome-to-the-churn</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:2d6a8c6cd36c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:futurism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:reflection"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:life-in-the-time-of-chaos"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:welcome-to-the-churn"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.14258">
    <title>[2009.14258] Towards decolonising computational sciences</title>
    <dc:date>2020-10-13T21:09:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.14258</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This article sets out our perspective on how to begin the journey of decolonising computational fields, such as data and cognitive sciences. We see this struggle as requiring two basic steps: a) realisation that the present-day system has inherited, and still enacts, hostile, conservative, and oppressive behaviours and principles towards women of colour (WoC); and b) rejection of the idea that centering individual people is a solution to system-level problems. The longer we ignore these two steps, the more "our" academic system maintains its toxic structure, excludes, and harms Black women and other minoritised groups. This also keeps the door open to discredited pseudoscience, like eugenics and physiognomy. We propose that grappling with our fields' histories and heritage holds the key to avoiding mistakes of the past. For example, initiatives such as "diversity boards" can still be harmful because they superficially appear reformatory but nonetheless center whiteness and maintain the status quo. Building on the shoulders of many WoC's work, who have been paving the way, we hope to advance the dialogue required to build both a grass-roots and a top-down re-imagining of computational sciences -- including but not limited to psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, computer science, data science, statistics, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. We aspire for these fields to progress away from their stagnant, sexist, and racist shared past into carving and maintaining an ecosystem where both a diverse demographics of researchers and scientific ideas that critically challenge the status quo are welcomed.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>decolonization social-justice technology cultural-assumptions cultural-norms engineering-criticism engineering-philosophy very-good have-read to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:9ba824f42913/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:decolonization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-justice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:engineering-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:engineering-philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:very-good"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:have-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/4/65">
    <title>Publications | Free Full-Text | Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?</title>
    <dc:date>2020-01-19T13:54:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/4/65</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Open science refers to both the practices and norms of more open and transparent communication and research in scientific disciplines and the discourse on these practices and norms. There is no such discourse dedicated to the humanities. Though the humanities appear to be less coherent as a cluster of scholarship than the sciences are, they do share unique characteristics which lead to distinct scholarly communication and research practices. A discourse on making these practices more open and transparent needs to take account of these characteristics. The prevalent scientific perspective in the discourse on more open practices does not do so, which confirms that the discourse’s name, open science, indeed excludes the humanities so that talking about open science in the humanities is incoherent. In this paper, I argue that there needs to be a dedicated discourse for more open research and communication practices in the humanities, one that integrates several elements currently fragmented into smaller, unconnected discourses (such as on open access, preprints, or peer review). I discuss three essential elements of open science—preprints, open peer review practices, and liberal open licences—in the realm of the humanities to demonstrate why a dedicated open humanities discourse is required. View Full-Text
]]></description>
<dc:subject>open-access publishing academic-culture humanities disintermediation-in-action gatekeepers cultural-assumptions rather-interesting to-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e562f0adab8e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:gatekeepers"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.molbiolcell.org/doi/10.1091/mbc.E19-03-0147">
    <title>From symbiont to parasite: the evolution of for-profit science publishing | Molecular Biology of the Cell</title>
    <dc:date>2019-11-03T20:50:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.molbiolcell.org/doi/10.1091/mbc.E19-03-0147</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Two 17th century institutions—learned societies and scientific journals—transformed science in ways that still dominate our professional lives today. Learned societies like the American Society for Cell Biology remain relevant because they provide forums for sharing results, discussing the practice of science, and projecting our voices to the public and the policy makers. Scientific journals still disseminate our work, but in the Internet-connected world of the 21st century, this is no longer their critical function. Journals remain relevant almost entirely because they provide a playing field for scientific and professional competition: to claim credit for a discovery, we publish it in a peer-reviewed journal; to get a job in academia or money to run a lab, we present these published papers to universities and funding agencies. Publishing is so embedded in the practice of science that whoever controls the journals controls access to the entire profession. We must reform our methods for evaluating the contributions of younger scientists and deflate the power of a small number of "elite" journals. More generally, given the recent failure of research institutions around the world to strike satisfactory deals with publishing giant Elsevier, the time has come to examine the motives and methods of those to whom we have entrusted the keys to the kingdom of science.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing academic-culture open-access corporatism parasitism cultural-assumptions cultural-norms radical-access to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:dedfca020b39/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:corporatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:parasitism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:radical-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=2353">
    <title>It’s the Industrial that enables the Artisanal – Soft Machines</title>
    <dc:date>2019-09-21T10:54:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=2353</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[And given that this infrastructure must be the product of industrial economies, will these local energy systems be generating enough surplus energy for export to run this industry? I don’t think so – so in addition to these local systems we will continue to need industrial scale low carbon energy sources – and in my opinion the heavy lifting here has to be done by a combination of offshore wind and nuclear.

The right questions to ask when we’re considering these questions of centralisation vs decentralisation come down to economies of scale – how do they arise, and how does the introduction of new technology change the balance of economies of scale? Failing to get this right leads to catastrophic mistakes like Mao’s “great leap forward” with its village blast furnaces – but there will be times, like craft beer, when new technology makes it possible to decentralise manufacturing and production.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:several economics political-economy craft industry cultural-assumptions network-effects rather-interesting consider:the-same-but-publishing technology</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:f65b35e70563/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:several"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:craft"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:industry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-effects"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:the-same-but-publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:technology"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.unemployednegativity.com/2019/07/what-deleuze-and-guattari-get-wrong.html">
    <title>Unemployed Negativity: What Deleuze and Guattari Get Wrong (About Capitalism).</title>
    <dc:date>2019-08-22T11:45:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.unemployednegativity.com/2019/07/what-deleuze-and-guattari-get-wrong.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["…the theorizing that Deleuze and Guattari offer, what could be characterized briefly as a theory of the economy of affects, offers at least some basis for beginning to understand the perverse world we live in in which the rise and fall of the stock market is almost a libidinally charged event and unemployment is as much a psychic trauma as an economic condition."]]></description>
<dc:subject>political-economy capitalism cultural-assumptions cultural-norms worklife to-understand it's-very-subtle-The-Continental</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:87f3c6b1ad5a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:capitalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-understand"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:it's-very-subtle-The-Continental"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://aaronzlewis.com/blog/2019/07/25/metaphors-we-believe-by/">
    <title>Metaphors we believe by: the pantheon of 2019</title>
    <dc:date>2019-08-07T11:19:09+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://aaronzlewis.com/blog/2019/07/25/metaphors-we-believe-by/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[IT’S 2013, AND I’M LOUNGING on the hardwood floor of my childhood bedroom with a blasphemous book that I smuggled home from college: Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation. I devour the whole thing in a single sitting. It feels like Harris is letting me in on a giant secret, a Big Truth that my very Christian upbringing had kept hidden from me. God is dead, he says. We killed him a few hundred years ago and replaced him with a sophisticated scientific understanding of life, the universe, and everything.

Fast-forward six years, and I’ve started to realize that the God vs. science situation is a bit more complicated than Sam Harris led me to believe. The more I learn, the more I suspect that rationalists only managed to kill a very narrow and anthropomorphic conception of God. People who study complex systems started using new words to talk about god-like phenomena — metaphors that are more palatable to secular minds. I believe these new words can help scientifically-minded people better understand what it actually felt like to believe in God before science became a Thing. Let’s take a tour through the pantheon of 2019 and explore what these seven “gods” might teach us in our era of ecological crisis and post-truth confusion.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>mythology cultural-assumptions rather-good to-write-about have-read American-cultural-assumptions systems-of-belief</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:3b47883bd5ff/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mythology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-good"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:have-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:American-cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:systems-of-belief"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://medium.com/@belover/prostitutes-in-the-bible-7d6404f0efe8">
    <title>Prostitutes in the Bible – Jonathan | sex &amp; theology – Medium</title>
    <dc:date>2019-05-14T10:36:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://medium.com/@belover/prostitutes-in-the-bible-7d6404f0efe8</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[his might be shocking, but let’s take it . . . step by step? In the Bible, prostitution is never wrong, and hookers, throughout the narratives, are clearly heroines.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:? history theology do-the-reading rather-interesting cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:792f0695f023/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:?"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:theology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:do-the-reading"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ianwelsh.net/economics-as-cultural-warfare-the-case-of-adam-smith/">
    <title>Economics as Cultural Warfare: The Case of Adam Smith | Ian Welsh</title>
    <dc:date>2019-04-13T11:26:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ianwelsh.net/economics-as-cultural-warfare-the-case-of-adam-smith/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[It should also be noted that today conservatives and neo-liberals use Hamilton’s paraphrasing of Adam Smith, not Hamilton’s arguments refuting Smith, to promote the falsehood that the USA economy is based on the ideas of Adam Smith. The fact is that Hamilton paraphrased Smith not to agree with Smith, but to refute him.]]></description>
<dc:subject>economics history-of-science cultural-assumptions cultural-norms the-anxiety-of-influence</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:097f817f4557/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-anxiety-of-influence"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.zoeonthego.org/2019/03/18/round-and-round-we-go/">
    <title>Round and round we go. – Digital and Agile Specialist</title>
    <dc:date>2019-03-27T12:00:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.zoeonthego.org/2019/03/18/round-and-round-we-go/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Agile is not a sprint, a race, or a marathon, it’s a game of snakes and ladders. You can get off, go back to the start or go back a phase or two if you need to. You win when all your user needs are met, but as user needs can change over time, you have to keep your eye on the board, and you only really stop playing once you decommission your Product or Service! 

]]></description>
<dc:subject>agility cultural-norms cultural-assumptions workalike corporatism representation to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:325d9eeb8989/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:agility"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:workalike"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:corporatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:representation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/28/how-blind-reverence-science-obscures-real-problems/?noredirect=on">
    <title>How blind reverence for science obscures real problems</title>
    <dc:date>2019-01-29T11:01:06+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/28/how-blind-reverence-science-obscures-real-problems/?noredirect=on</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In actual fact, “social justice” jargon wasn’t enough — as the hoaxers initially thought — to deceive, but sprinkling in fake data did the trick better than jargon or political pieties ever could. Like Ocasio-Cortez’s critics, who trust too easily in the appearance of scientific objectivity, the hoaxed journals were more likely to buy outrageous claims if they were backed by something that looked like scientific data. It’s not that the hoax was an utter failure, nor that we shouldn’t worry about the vulnerabilities it exposed. It’s that, ironically, scientism and misplaced scientific authority actually contribute to those vulnerabilities and undermine science in the process.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>scientism argumentation politics fascism conservatism social-norms cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:be2e5a22e08b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:scientism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:argumentation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:fascism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:conservatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ladyscience.com/blog/archive-of-hate-ethics-of-care-in-the-preservation-of-ugly-histories">
    <title>Archive of Hate: Ethics of Care in the Preservation of Ugly Histories — Lady Science</title>
    <dc:date>2019-01-21T11:45:47+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ladyscience.com/blog/archive-of-hate-ethics-of-care-in-the-preservation-of-ugly-histories</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Perhaps the collection would only be accessed by using a public library computer or logging in with institutional credentials. Perhaps users would be required to register and electronically sign use policies. Perhaps content warnings would help users to determine if they want to proceed with viewing potentially traumatic materials. Without working closely with people of color, we don’t yet know what a caring digital platform looks like in the case of KKK newspapers, or even if one is possible.

As it stands now, however, the Hate in America collection fails to enact an ethic of care, so we call upon our readers to raise their voices to Reveal Digital. The online collection will not be made openly available until a funding threshold is reached, anticipated in 2019. Researchers and librarians, you can advocate for change to the access model before the collection becomes public. Libraries, you can withdraw or withhold commitment until Reveal Digital leaders engage librarians of color, race scholars, and anti-racist activists in dialogue about how to balance access and care.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>digitization hate-speech history archives social-norms social-responsibility cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:85d05aeea307/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digitization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:hate-speech"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:archives"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-responsibility"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2018/05/privacy-security-ethics-computer-sciences-judische-physik/">
    <title>Privacy, Security, &amp; Ethics – Computer Science’s “Jüdische Physik” – Terence Eden's Blog</title>
    <dc:date>2018-10-26T11:50:39+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2018/05/privacy-security-ethics-computer-sciences-judische-physik/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[I'm going to tell you an anecdote which is a gross oversimplification, and is an unfair comparison.
In the early part of the twenty-first century, many people working in the fledgeling Internet industry started making noise about privacy, security, and ethics. The mainstream technologists called them fearmongers, idealists, and anti-business. Their ideas were unwelcome and they were thrown out of both the cathedral and the bazaar.
Many retreated to academia, some stayed and tried to cultivate a sense of responsibility in the industry, a few started lobbying governments around the world. By the time trust in the existing structures had begun to collapse, there were too few privacy-focused employees left to reverse the damage.
By expelling the boring and pessimistic doomsayers, the Internet behemoths had sowed the seeds of their own destruction.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>security professionalism online-culture privacy startup-culture-must-die cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:6099df5374a9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:security"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:professionalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:online-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:privacy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:startup-culture-must-die"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01862">
    <title>[1808.01862] Yes, Aboriginal Australians Can and Did Discover the Variability of Betelgeuse</title>
    <dc:date>2018-08-20T12:41:09+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01862</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Recently, a widely publicized claim has been made that the Aboriginal Australians discovered the variability of the red star Betelgeuse in the modern Orion, plus the variability of two other prominent red stars: Aldebaran and Antares. This result has excited the usual healthy skepticism, with questions about whether any untrained peoples can discover the variability and whether such a discovery is likely to be placed into lore and transmitted for long periods of time. Here, I am offering an independent evaluation, based on broad experience with naked-eye sky viewing and astro-history. I find that it is easy for inexperienced observers to detect the variability of Betelgeuse over its range in brightness from V = 0.0 to V = 1.3, for example in noticing from season-to-season that the star varies from significantly brighter than Procyon to being greatly fainter than Procyon. Further, indigenous peoples in the Southern Hemisphere inevitably kept watch on the prominent red star, so it is inevitable that the variability of Betelgeuse was discovered many times over during the last 65 millennia. The processes of placing this discovery into a cultural context (in this case, put into morality stories) and the faithful transmission for many millennia is confidently known for the Aboriginal Australians in particular. So this shows that the whole claim for a changing Betelgeuse in the Aboriginal Australian lore is both plausible and likely. Given that the discovery and transmission is easily possible, the real proof is that the Aboriginal lore gives an unambiguous statement that these stars do indeed vary in brightness, as collected by many ethnographers over a century ago from many Aboriginal groups. So I strongly conclude that the Aboriginal Australians could and did discover the variability of Betelgeuse, Aldebaran, and Antares.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>cultural-assumptions astronomy history-of-science colonialism science-studies to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:6aa30638f7ea/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:astronomy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:colonialism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science-studies"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2018_Spring_Weatherby.php">
    <title>IASC: The Hedgehog Review - Volume 20, No. 1 (Spring 2018) - Digital Metaphysics: The Cybernetic Idealism of Warren McCulloch -</title>
    <dc:date>2018-06-30T11:22:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2018_Spring_Weatherby.php</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Kant famously stated that he had “awoken from his dogmatic slumber”30 by reading the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume. Hume maintained a bright line between “matters of fact” and “relations of ideas.” This meant that mental habit was central. If one wanted to form a meaningful sentence about the world (“this causes that”), then one would have to habituate the mind by noticing common correlations and regularly drawing the conclusion that one thing “caused” another. Kant disagreed. Cause, he reasoned, could not just be a mental habit, because it had a hidden premise: not that one thing followed another in time, but that it necessarily did so. To conceive of a necessity in the world was to add something more than habit to observation—to contribute a law to nature.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy-of-science philosophy neural-networks representation cultural-assumptions machine-learning le-sigh familiar-refrains-again-again</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e51abbc493f4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:neural-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:representation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:machine-learning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:le-sigh"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:familiar-refrains-again-again"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://medium.com/quietstars/sturgeons-biases-a40037acd16a">
    <title>Sturgeon’s Biases – Quietstars – Medium</title>
    <dc:date>2018-04-16T12:45:23+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://medium.com/quietstars/sturgeons-biases-a40037acd16a</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Some smart social psychologist, anthropologist or sociologist probably wrote about this seventy years ago. So I’m just going to ramble about it here for a bit, and hope that somebody smarter than I am can point me to that paper. So I know what to call it.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>communities-of-practice cultural-assumptions cultural-norms essay social-norms rather-interesting</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:a272ecd68b66/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:communities-of-practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:essay"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/19/post-work-the-radical-idea-of-a-world-without-jobs?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet">
    <title>Post-work: the radical idea of a world without jobs | News | The Guardian</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-28T12:26:06+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/19/post-work-the-radical-idea-of-a-world-without-jobs?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[As a source of social mobility and self-worth, work increasingly fails even the most educated people – supposedly the system’s winners. In 2017, half of recent UK graduates were officially classified as “working in a non-graduate role”. In the US, “belief in work is crumbling among people in their 20s and 30s”, says Benjamin Hunnicutt, a leading historian of work. “They are not looking to their job for satisfaction or social advancement.” (You can sense this every time a graduate with a faraway look makes you a latte.)

Work is increasingly precarious: more zero-hours or short-term contracts; more self-employed people with erratic incomes; more corporate “restructurings” for those still with actual jobs. As a source of sustainable consumer booms and mass home-ownership – for much of the 20th century, the main successes of mainstream western economic policy – work is discredited daily by our ongoing debt and housing crises. For many people, not just the very wealthy, work has become less important financially than inheriting money or owning a home.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>worklife sociology cultural-assumptions neoliberalism capitalism bullshit-jobs to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:88d7a3431d29/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:neoliberalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:capitalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bullshit-jobs"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://longreads.com/2017/12/05/the-consent-of-the-ungoverned/">
    <title>The Consent of the (Un)governed</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-28T12:18:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://longreads.com/2017/12/05/the-consent-of-the-ungoverned/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[I have big fights with an older female relative about this. She believes that women have a great deal of responsibility when they are assaulted, and I suspect that the reason she believes this is because it gives her comfort and a sense of control to think that there was choice involved. Because the alternative is worse. The alternative is that there’s nothing she can do to stop it, and by extension, nothing she can do to protect her daughters, her granddaughters, her friends, herself. Feeling complicit in our own harassment allows us to survive trauma, but it also prevents us from confronting it. This is how we get a world where women, for their own safety, are counseled by the people who love them against walking alone at night. It’s our choice, a choice we make for our own good, as independent women, to minimize our risk. But that’s not freedom. That’s something else.

The same is true of both the democratic process and, to some extent, the labor market. Individuals are offered very little choice indeed, but the choices we do have are inflated into much more than they are. Since it allows us to believe that we are free and it suits those in power that we continue to believe this, we cling doggedly to our anemic choices and call it love.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:various activism sexism political-economy reactionaries social-norms cultural-assumptions neoliberalism fascism labor capitalism</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:d1f1adcf76d2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:various"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:activism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sexism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:reactionaries"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:neoliberalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:fascism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:labor"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:capitalism"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://electricliterature.com/when-bad-men-define-good-art-a54c736494e9">
    <title>When Bad Men Define Good Art – Electric Literature</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-09T13:14:30+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://electricliterature.com/when-bad-men-define-good-art-a54c736494e9</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Once you realize how much the structures of literary power are bound up with the concept of literary quality, it becomes clear — if it wasn’t already — that our entire concept of “quality” is suspect. The Paris Review publishes twice as many men as women; are men twice as good? The New York Times described Stein as “regarded by many as a champion of new talent, including some women writers,” but that “some” is poison. One can’t really make the case that Stein was a champion of women writers generally; under his auspices, The Paris Review went from one-third women writers to… one-third women writers. So who broke through to be part of the illustrious third? This is not to say that the writers who did make their way into The Paris Review’s pages aren’t worthy, but we should illuminate the hand that picked them, and the other work it cast aside. In short, if you weren’t already paying attention to the ways that whiteness and maleness determine what we value in art, you should be now.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>cultural-norms cultural-assumptions rather-interesting literary-criticism social-dynamics ethics to-write-about what-gets-measured-gets-fudged</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:81c9b24dc74a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:literary-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ethics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:what-gets-measured-gets-fudged"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://hookandeye.ca/2017/09/21/why-cant-we-be-our-whole-selves-as-academics/">
    <title>Why Can’t We Be Our Whole Selves as Academics? – Hook</title>
    <dc:date>2017-09-23T13:23:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://hookandeye.ca/2017/09/21/why-cant-we-be-our-whole-selves-as-academics/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Why can’t we have that as academics? It’s a genuine question: what does an academic culture that requires us to elide our personal lives, to treat our bodies as containers for our brains (even with broken feet), to elevate intellect over affect, do that’s useful to the academy? Does it make academic work appear more legitimate–and if so, to whom? Does it gatekeep, for the benefit of those in power, the people who cannot wholly divorce their bodily/personal/affective lives from their work? Does it make stressful and onerous academic and administrative work seem simpler, even if it isn’t? Does it delegitimate certain kinds of labour, especially emotional, so that labour doesn’t have to be acknowledged or compensated?]]></description>
<dc:subject>the-docile-body-of-the-author corporatism academic-culture worklife cultural-assumptions via:twitter</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:d4d43857f002/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-docile-body-of-the-author"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:corporatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:twitter"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://theconversation.com/the-internet-of-things-is-sending-us-back-to-the-middle-ages-81435">
    <title>The 'internet of things' is sending us back to the Middle Ages</title>
    <dc:date>2017-09-15T12:17:36+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://theconversation.com/the-internet-of-things-is-sending-us-back-to-the-middle-ages-81435</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The underlying problem is ownership

One key reason we don’t control our devices is that the companies that make them seem to think – and definitely act like – they still own them, even after we’ve bought them. A person may purchase a nice-looking box full of electronics that can function as a smartphone, the corporate argument goes, but they buy a license only to use the software inside. The companies say they still own the software, and because they own it, they can control it. It’s as if a car dealer sold a car, but claimed ownership of the motor.

This sort of arrangement is destroying the concept of basic property ownership. John Deere has already told farmers that they don’t really own their tractors but just license the software – so they can’t fix their own farm equipment or even take it to an independent repair shop. The farmers are objecting, but maybe some people are willing to let things slide when it comes to smartphones, which are often bought on a payment installment plan and traded in as soon as possible.

How long will it be before we realize they’re trying to apply the same rules to our smart homes, smart televisions in our living rooms and bedrooms, smart toilets and internet-enabled cars?

]]></description>
<dc:subject>ownership internet-of-shit capitalist-cultural-assumptions cultural-assumptions economics public-policy we-need-new-animals</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:4aebab71ffd4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ownership"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:internet-of-shit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:capitalist-cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:public-policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:we-need-new-animals"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://uncannymagazine.com/article/let-me-tell-you/">
    <title>Let Me Tell You - Uncanny Magazine</title>
    <dc:date>2017-09-10T13:43:23+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://uncannymagazine.com/article/let-me-tell-you/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Look at the literary fiction techniques that are supposedly the hallmarks of good writing: nearly all of them rely not on what was said, but on what is left unsaid. Always come at things sideways; don’t be too direct, too pat, or too slick. Lead the reader in a direction but allow them to come to the conclusion. Ask the question but don’t state the answer too baldly. Leave things open to interpretation… but not too open, of course, or you have chaos. Make allusions and references to the works of the literary canon, the Bible, and familiar events of history to add a layer of evocation—but don’t make it too obvious or you’re copycatting. These are the do’s and don’ts of MFA programs everywhere. They rely on a shared pool of knowledge and cultural assumptions so that the words left unsaid are powerfully communicated. I am not saying this is not a worthwhile experience as reader or writer, but I am saying anointing it the pinnacle of “craft” leaves out any voice, genre, or experience that falls outside the status quo. The inverse is also true, then: writing about any experience that is “foreign” to that body of shared knowledge is too often deemed less worthy because to make it understandable to the mainstream takes a lot of explanation. Which we’ve been taught is bad writing!

And science fiction (and fantasy), by definition, falls outside the status quo. I look at those rules and I think no wonder a lot of MFA programs don’t allow genre fiction. What they want students to learn, what they define as good writing, runs counter to the purpose of science fiction and fantasy, which is to displace the reader from the status quo right from the start and never re-establish it. SF/F can certainly make allusions to the Bible and Shakespeare if the writer wants to, but obviously the idea that a story must take place in some “universal” setting goes out the window when the first thing that changes is reality itself.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>passing cultural-assumptions literary-criticism genre-fiction advice to-write-about signaling</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:2543b333f284/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:passing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:literary-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:genre-fiction"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:advice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:signaling"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2989189/the_hidden_environmental_impacts_of_platform_capitalism.html">
    <title>The hidden environmental impacts of ‘platform capitalism’ - The Ecologist</title>
    <dc:date>2017-08-27T12:33:09+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2989189/the_hidden_environmental_impacts_of_platform_capitalism.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In comparison, the inner workings of these companies are becoming increasingly harder to comprehend, something that Frank Pasquale has identified with his idea of The Black Box Society. 
 
We may be able to observe the huge levels of profits, but it is harder to understand what is happening within the proprietary systems of these companies.
 
This is no accident. A key part of this new business model is obscuring how the company actually works. For example, companies like Uber or Deliveroo claim not to employ any drivers, instead using a contractual trick to organise a precarious pool of gig workers who are technically self-employed.
 
These methods shift the costs and risks onto workers, freeing the company from regulations like the minimum wage, holiday and sick pay, and pensions. 
 
The platform orientation of these companies is about dodging regulations to maximise profits. If these companies are not prepared to pay workers properly, it does not bode well for meeting other regulations and responsibilities more broadly.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>platform-capitalism economics corporatism end-times cultural-assumptions political-economy public-policy crowdsourcing-it-aint</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:2e0204874a25/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:platform-capitalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:corporatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:end-times"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:public-policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:crowdsourcing-it-aint"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://fromphdtolife.com/2013/02/03/scholarship-and-life/">
    <title>Scholarship and life - From PhD to Life</title>
    <dc:date>2017-08-27T12:21:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://fromphdtolife.com/2013/02/03/scholarship-and-life/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Scholars are almost always academics. We assign the designation to professors and researchers with university posts who get paid to research and publish. The term “independent scholar” only proves this: The qualifier is necessary because “scholar” by itself implies an academic position. I think this is why I’ve been uneasy about my desire to continue my research concurrent with building a non-academic life. Research and teaching go hand in hand, but scholarship and a non-academic career doesn’t seem right. Is my on-going interest in my dissertation topic a sign that I haven’t yet let go of academia? Is there room for scholarship in a life completely removed from a university?

]]></description>
<dc:subject>scholarship cultural-norms cultural-assumptions worklife</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:637880d9db8f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:scholarship"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://crookedtimber.org/2017/08/11/from-a-logical-point-of-view/">
    <title>From a logical point of view … — Crooked Timber</title>
    <dc:date>2017-08-13T15:18:46+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://crookedtimber.org/2017/08/11/from-a-logical-point-of-view/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[I have now read that “google manifesto”. I read it more out of a desire to forestall people saying “but have you ACTUALLY READ IT?” than out of any expectation that it would contain new or unfamiliar information, and indeed it was your fairly standard evo-psych “just asking questions”, genus differences-in-tails-of-distributions. It’s a mulberry bush that was already pretty well circumnavigated when Larry Summers was still President of Harvard. But what really struck me was that I have changed in my old age; I used to be depressed at the generally very poor level of statistical education, now I’m depressed at the extent to which people with an excellent education in statistics still don’t really understand anything about the subject. I’m beginning to think that mathematical training in many cases is actually damaging; simple and robust metrics, usually drawn from the early days of industrial quality control, are what people need to understand. Let’s talk about distributions of programming ability.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:cshalizi startup-culture-must-die bad-statistics argument-by-authority cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:65e03c355e2d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:cshalizi"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:startup-culture-must-die"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bad-statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:argument-by-authority"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://newrepublic.com/article/143004/rise-thought-leader-how-superrich-funded-new-class-intellectual">
    <title>The Rise of the Thought Leader | New Republic</title>
    <dc:date>2017-07-09T11:32:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://newrepublic.com/article/143004/rise-thought-leader-how-superrich-funded-new-class-intellectual</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In his book The Ideas Industry, the political scientist and foreign policy blogger Daniel W. Drezner broadens the focus to include the conditions in which ideas are formed, funded, and expressed. Describing the public sphere in the language of markets, he argues that three major factors have altered the fortunes of today’s intellectuals: the evaporation of public trust in institutions, the polarization of American society, and growing economic inequality. He correctly identifies the last of these as the most important: the extraordinary rise of the American superrich, a class interested in supporting a particular genre of “ideas.”

The rich have, Drezner writes, empowered a new kind of thinker—the “thought leader”—at the expense of the much-fretted-over “public intellectual.” Whereas public intellectuals like Noam Chomsky or Martha Nussbaum are skeptical and analytical, thought leaders like Thomas Friedman and Sheryl Sandberg “develop their own singular lens to explain the world, and then proselytize that worldview to anyone within earshot.” While public intellectuals traffic in complexity and criticism, thought leaders burst with the evangelist’s desire to “change the world.” Many readers, Drezner observes, prefer the “big ideas” of the latter to the complexity of the former. In a marketplace of ideas awash in plutocrat cash, it has become “increasingly profitable for thought leaders to hawk their wares to both billionaires and a broader public,” to become “superstars with their own brands, sharing a space previously reserved for moguls, celebrities, and athletes.”

]]></description>
<dc:subject>think-leading cultural-norms cultural-assumptions culture-war public-policy discourse-and-dialectic-sittin-in-a-tree</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:8484d4ac0ef4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:think-leading"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:culture-war"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:public-policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:discourse-and-dialectic-sittin-in-a-tree"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.publicbooks.org/the-problem-with-philanthropy/">
    <title>The Problem with Philanthropy | Public Books</title>
    <dc:date>2017-05-09T16:08:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.publicbooks.org/the-problem-with-philanthropy/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The “myth” Kohl-Arenas identifies is the belief that individuals and communities can change their material circumstances in the absence of any change to the systems and policies that govern those circumstances. In the US, our national narrative places the lion’s share of responsibility on individuals: responsibility for poverty on the poor, for mental illness on the mentally ill and their families, for incarceration on the incarcerated. As a wealthy, developed nation, we are a bewildering outlier in our refusal to take more communal responsibility for our brethren. When people do organize to care for one another, and in doing so discover that life struggles are linked to structural problems in need of policy solutions, they are often demoralized to find that funders shy away from any work that would promote policy change.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>philanthropy public-policy cultural-engineering cultural-assumptions corporatism revolution</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:dbca80e9b62c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philanthropy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:public-policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-engineering"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:corporatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:revolution"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://newrepublic.com/article/141663/united-states-work">
    <title>The United States of Work | New Republic</title>
    <dc:date>2017-05-08T09:56:40+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://newrepublic.com/article/141663/united-states-work</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Anderson’s most provocative argument is that large companies, the institutions that employ most workers, amount to a de facto form of government, exerting massive and intrusive power in our daily lives. Unlike the state, these private governments are able to wield power with little oversight, because the executives and boards of directors that rule them are accountable to no one but themselves. Although they exercise their power to varying degrees and through both direct and “soft” means, employers can dictate how we dress and style our hair, when we eat, when (and if) we may use the toilet, with whom we may partner and under what arrangements. Employers may subject our bodies to drug tests; monitor our speech both on and off the job; require us to answer questionnaires about our exercise habits, off-hours alcohol consumption, and childbearing intentions; and rifle through our belongings. If the state held such sweeping powers, Anderson argues, we would probably not consider ourselves free men and women.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>corporatism via:bkerr labor politics political-economy cultural-assumptions worklife not-encouraging</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:0fb9e67d0d35/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:corporatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:bkerr"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:labor"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:not-encouraging"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://suburbdad.blogspot.com/2017/03/thoughts-on-nordic-theory-of-everything.html">
    <title>Confessions of a Community College Dean: Thoughts on The Nordic Theory of Everything</title>
    <dc:date>2017-03-17T00:09:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://suburbdad.blogspot.com/2017/03/thoughts-on-nordic-theory-of-everything.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The real shock of Partanen’s book is how shocked she is at us.  She tries to be nice, praising Americans’ optimism and diversity, but there’s an element of “how can you not see this?” that’s painful because it’s substantially true.  As a parent, I house-hunted based in part on public school districts.  I squirrel away what I can in 529 plans for my kids, even knowing that it won’t come close to being enough.  I take it as given that I have to pay for doctor’s visits, and that later I’ll have to pay more when I get an inscrutable “explanation of benefits” designed by a for-profit company to defeat my will to fight its decisions not to cover what it promised.  
]]></description>
<dc:subject>cultural-norms cultural-assumptions American-cultural-assumptions alas</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:685b27d4d858/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:American-cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:alas"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/programming-forgetting-new-hacker-ethic/">
    <title>Programming is Forgetting: Toward a New Hacker Ethic - Allison Parrish | Open Transcripts</title>
    <dc:date>2017-03-15T12:13:48+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/programming-forgetting-new-hacker-ethic/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[So to that end I’m propos­ing a new hack­er ethic. Of course propos­ing a closed set of rules for vir­tu­ous behav­ior would go again­st the very phi­los­o­phy I’m try­ing to advance, so my ethic instead takes the form of ques­tions that every hack­er should ask them­selves while they’re mak­ing pro­grams and machi­nes. So here they are.

Instead of say­ing access to com­put­ers should be unlim­it­ed and total, we should ask ​“Who gets to use what I make? Who am I leav­ing out? How does what I make facil­i­tate or hin­der access?”

Instead of say­ing all infor­ma­tion should be free, we could ask ​“What data am I using? Whose labor pro­duced it and what bias­es and assump­tions are built into it? Why choose this par­tic­u­lar phe­nom­e­non for dig­i­ti­za­tion or tran­scrip­tion? And what do the data leave out?”

Instead of say­ing mis­trust author­i­ty, pro­mote decen­tral­iza­tion, we should ask ​“What sys­tems of author­i­ty am I enact­ing through what I make? What sys­tems of sup­port do I rely on? How does what I make sup­port oth­er peo­ple?”

And instead of say­ing hack­ers should be judged by their hack­ing, not bogus cri­te­ria such as degrees, age, race, or posi­tion, we should ask ​“What kind of com­mu­ni­ty am I assum­ing? What com­mu­ni­ty do I invite through what I make? How are my own per­son­al val­ues reflect­ed in what I make?”

So you might have noticed that there were two final points—the two last points of Levy’s hack­er ethics that I left alone, and those are the­se: You can cre­ate art and beau­ty on a com­put­er. Computers can change your life for the bet­ter. I think if there’s any­thing to be res­cued from hack­er cul­ture it’s the­se two sen­tences. These two sen­tences are the rea­son that I’m a com­put­er pro­gram­mer and that I’m a teacher in the first place. And I believe them and I know you believe them, and that’s why we’re here togeth­er today. Thank you.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:ignatz cultural-assumptions hacking technology mindfulness</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:72c943e0a909/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:ignatz"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:hacking"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mindfulness"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-world-as-representation.html">
    <title>The Archdruid Report: The World as Representation</title>
    <dc:date>2017-02-19T13:50:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-world-as-representation.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Doing that, though, would require an attitude we might as well call epistemic modesty: the recognition that the human capacity to know has hard limits, and the unqualified absolute truth about most things is out of our reach. Socrates was called the wisest of the Greeks because he accepted the need for epistemic modesty, and recognized that he didn’t actually know much of anything for certain. That recognition didn’t keep him from being able to get up in the morning and go to work at his day job as a stonecutter, and it needn’t keep the rest of us from doing what we have to do as industrial civilization lurches down the trajectory toward a difficult future.

Taken seriously, though, epistemic modesty requires some serious second thoughts about certain very deeply ingrained presuppositions of the cultures of the West. Some of those second thoughts are fairly easy to reach, but one of the most challenging starts with a seemingly simple question: is there anything we experience that isn’t a representation? In the weeks ahead we’ll track that question all the way to its deeply troubling destination.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy-of-science philosophy cultural-assumptions scientism rather-interesting to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:074495440947/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:scientism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://itself.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/worthy-opponents/">
    <title>Worthy Opponents | An und für sich</title>
    <dc:date>2016-11-18T14:44:06+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://itself.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/worthy-opponents/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Jay Rosen has written a summary of the reasons that the traditional model of campaign reporting has broken down. The old approach envisioned the political process as involving “two similar parties with warring philosophies that compete for tactical advantage” — in other words, a struggle between two worthy opponents who recognized each other as such. Now that symmetry has broken down as Republicans increasingly view Democrats, along with the entire traditional field of battle (Constitutional constraints, journalistic balance), as fraudulent and illegitimate. To use Schmittian terminology that Rosen does not, the Republicans shifted from viewing the Democrats as enemies to viewing them as foes. Unfortunately, in Rosen’s view, journalists were too complacent about this process and wound up getting blindsided by Trump, who is the logical outgrowth of this asymmetrical dynamic.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>fascism election cultural-norms cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:24b0335b122a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:fascism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:election"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://hyperallergic.com/115200/thinking-about-art-practice-and-the-role-of-compromise/">
    <title>Thinking About Art Practice and the Role of Compromise</title>
    <dc:date>2016-10-27T13:28:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://hyperallergic.com/115200/thinking-about-art-practice-and-the-role-of-compromise/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[I do not think that pushing back against this condition is something that I, or any artist, can do alone. Let’s imagine that artists were encouraged to compromise less in order to make overtly sellable objects and be more honest about the compromises we do make. Would that subtract from the viewing experience or add to it? Yes, it might deflate the experience in the gallery, museum, or fair cubicle. It would partially de-fetishize art objects, peeling back their veneer as conveniently decorative, culminations of artistic pursuits. It would leave viewers wanting more, encouraging them to venture to artist’s studios, get to know artists better and understand the true intentions behind and, more importantly, beyond our work. Wouldn’t that be a world with better art? For now, though, I, like many artists, am asking myself the question, “What can I do to make my work more sellable?” Whatever comes of it, surely will not be described as such in our artist statements, so get ready to keep reading between the lines.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>cultural-norms cultural-assumptions worklife compromise activism on-going-broke-being-right</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:eb57fb53c056/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:compromise"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:activism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:on-going-broke-being-right"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://chronicle.com/article/The-Professor-Is-a-Drag-Queen/234357/">
    <title>The Professor Is a Drag Queen - The Chronicle of Higher Education</title>
    <dc:date>2016-08-20T11:41:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://chronicle.com/article/The-Professor-Is-a-Drag-Queen/234357/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[There may be students who do not want to be taught by a gay professor or drag professor (or female, or Asian, or Muslim, or whatever), but I cannot control that. By denying parts of myself to fit into more common perceptions of what a professor should be, I am denying most of my students a fuller, more present teacher. A few students might slam me in their evaluations because of their own prejudices, but I should not be forced to compartmentalize myself for those few. I am learning, after years of working in education, that being my authentic self is much more valuable in reaching more students more thoroughly. Students should appreciate the diversity of their faculty. Faculty should not conform to conventional interpretations of professorship.

I am not suggesting that I will show up in all my classes dressed in drag. Drag, in its sneaky, subversive way, has opened my eyes to the other personae I had assumed in order to conform or to be accepted. From now on, I will strive to share parts of my experience that may be germane to my course topics. I do not need to play down or suppress parts of who I am in order to appear smarter, or more academic, or more appropriately professorial. There is no mold to match to be a true professor. I am not John Houseman in The Paper Chase, and I never will be. To provide a richer education to my students, I must share the best of myself — whoever that is — along with the content of my subject matter.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture stereotypes cultural-assumptions cultural-engineering self-image sociology social-norms</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:08d15eb1bd39/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:stereotypes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-engineering"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:self-image"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.trevorowens.org/2016/07/but-thats-not-preservation-notes-on-preservations-divergent-lineages/">
    <title>“But That’s Not Preservation!” Notes on Preservation’s Divergent Lineages | Trevor Owens</title>
    <dc:date>2016-07-16T17:40:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.trevorowens.org/2016/07/but-thats-not-preservation-notes-on-preservations-divergent-lineages/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>via-twitter archives cultural-norms cultural-assumptions professionalism academic-culture rather-interesting librarians nano history digital-humanities</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:d34735bc61a2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via-twitter"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:archives"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:professionalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:librarians"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:nano"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digital-humanities"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.03490#">
    <title>[1606.03490] The Mythos of Model Interpretability</title>
    <dc:date>2016-07-05T11:55:48+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.03490#</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Supervised machine learning models boast remarkable predictive capabilities. But can you trust your model? Will it work in deployment? What else can it tell you about the world? We want models to be not only good, but interpretable. And yet the task of interpretation appears underspecified. Papers provide diverse and sometimes non-overlapping motivations for interpretability, and offer myriad notions of what attributes render models interpretable. Despite this ambiguity, many papers proclaim interpretability axiomatically, absent further explanation. In this paper, we seek to refine the discourse on interpretability. First, we examine the motivations underlying interest in interpretability, finding them to be diverse and occasionally discordant. Then, we address model properties and techniques thought to confer interpretability, identifying transparency to humans and post-hoc explanations as competing notions. Throughout, we discuss the feasibility and desirability of different notions, and question the oft-made assertions that linear models are interpretable and that deep neural networks are not.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>models-and-modes infighting representation philosophy-of-engineering to-write-about neural-networks cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:94a57fc5464c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:models-and-modes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:infighting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:representation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-engineering"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:neural-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.wordsinspace.net/wordpress/2016/06/28/small-moving-intelligent-parts/">
    <title>Small, Moving, Intelligent Parts – Words in Space</title>
    <dc:date>2016-07-01T13:38:43+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.wordsinspace.net/wordpress/2016/06/28/small-moving-intelligent-parts/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[I was invited a while ago to write an article for a special issue of Theory, Culture & Society. The theme is, uh… a little hard to explain: we were asked to look at the 50 years leading up to and following World War I, focusing particularly on how the War both culminated and anticipated various avant-garde movements and technological developments, including mediated sensing, weaponry, and tools for calculation and control. Building upon my research on Remington Rand’s information-management systems at the 1939-40 World’s Fair — which I published in Places this past February — I decided to focus on the arguably un-avant-garde world of filing and record-keeping, and to examine how cards and files — the “small, moving parts” of information — came to represent various fantasies about our urban and global futures. I have a feeling I’ll be asked to make some significant edits — so I figured I’d post the full, feral draft, just in case some of this material never makes it into print.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>nanohistory information-overload schemes rather-interesting essay librarians cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:cbd1bf176f19/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:nanohistory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:information-overload"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:schemes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:essay"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:librarians"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://amasad.me/2016/01/03/overcoming-intuition-in-programming/">
    <title>Overcoming Intuition in Programming</title>
    <dc:date>2016-01-12T20:28:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://amasad.me/2016/01/03/overcoming-intuition-in-programming/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[I think fixing this problem ultimately comes down to education. Very early on when someone is learning programming our culture tend to emphasize an obsession with tooling. I get a lot of questions from aspiring programmers on what’s the best tool or languages to learn. It’s almost always a premature question to ask. I used to come up with answers like “depending on what you’re building” or “pick a beginner friendly community” or “invest in a growing language”. I think all of these are good answers, but it doesn’t really matter that early on in a programmer’s learning journey. It’s all the same when you’re essentially learning how to compute. Furthermore, these sort of answers enable the culture of tooling obsession.

Code reuse, libraries, sharing, and open-source are very important to software engineering, but we should be careful to not enable the belief that programming should be as easy as gluing things together. In fact, these days I’m often skeptical when things feel a little bit too easy. If programming was as easy as this then it would’ve already been automated away.]]></description>
<dc:subject>software-development-is-not-programming cultural-assumptions programming system-of-professions community-formation social-norms</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:5b27dc56e906/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:software-development-is-not-programming"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:programming"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:system-of-professions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:community-formation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2015/08/the-sad-death-of-free-market-pessimism.html">
    <title>Stumbling and Mumbling: The sad death of free market pessimism</title>
    <dc:date>2015-08-07T12:20:43+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2015/08/the-sad-death-of-free-market-pessimism.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The problem with this is that, as Bertrand Russell famously said, the fact that something has happened in the past does not ensure its continuance. Paradoxically, the optimists might be making the same error as Malthus. Just as he looked at centuries of human history and inferred that mankind was doomed to subsistence, so free market optimists might be over-inferring from two centuries of success. It's quite possible that, at some time, the race between diminishing returns and technical progress will be won by the former.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>capitalism economic-crisis cultural-assumptions cultural-dynamics political-economy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:352d07fbde8d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:capitalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economic-crisis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://feministkilljoys.com/2015/06/25/against-students/">
    <title>Against Students | feministkilljoys</title>
    <dc:date>2015-06-27T14:43:07+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://feministkilljoys.com/2015/06/25/against-students/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We are so far away from the picture created by the figure of the complaining student (who wields her power over academics) that it is or should be striking. I have been in touch with students from many different universities who have made complaints – or tried to make complaints – about sexual harassment as well as other forms of bullying. I have learnt of the myriad ways in which students are silenced. Some students are dissuaded from proceeding to formal complaints. They are told that to complain would damage their own reputation, or undermine their chances of progression; or that to complain would damage the reputation of the member of staff concerned (and if they do proceed with complaints they are often publicly criticised as damaging the reputation of the member of staff); or that it would damage the reputation of departments in which they are based (with a general implication being: to complain is to be ungrateful). Students have reported how their complaints are “sat on,” how they have testify again and again; or how they are doubted and ridiculed by those they go to for advice and support.]]></description>
<dc:subject>cultural-norms cultural-assumptions academic-culture culture-clash</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:fd3d9b484e85/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:culture-clash"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://commonstransition.org/michel-bauwens-the-transition-will-not-be-smooth-sailing/">
    <title>Michel Bauwens: The Transition Will Not Be Smooth Sailing - Commons TransitionCommons Transition</title>
    <dc:date>2015-06-27T12:23:15+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://commonstransition.org/michel-bauwens-the-transition-will-not-be-smooth-sailing/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In her book Owning Our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution, Marjorie Kelly aptly defines the challenge that awaits us: moving from extractive capital to generative capital. The good news is that this process has already started. First of all, because it is impossible to hide the fact that civil society has now become a value creator. This is an important point, as civil society was mostly absent from the “classic” capitalist equation. In addition, we are beginning to witness a change in market structures: commercial spheres of a new kind are developing around the Commons. Enspiral [a collaborative network of social entrepreneurs], in New Zealand, is the perfect example of this type of entrepreneurial coalition.]]></description>
<dc:subject>peer-to-peer peer-production economics to-read financial-crisis cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:729b134e1b02/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:peer-to-peer"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:peer-production"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:financial-crisis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.cringely.com/2015/06/24/the-u-s-computer-industry-is-dying-and-ill-tell-you-exactly-who-is-killing-it-and-why/">
    <title>I, Cringely The U.S. computer industry is dying and I’ll tell you exactly who is killing it and why - I, Cringely</title>
    <dc:date>2015-06-27T11:53:23+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.cringely.com/2015/06/24/the-u-s-computer-industry-is-dying-and-ill-tell-you-exactly-who-is-killing-it-and-why/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Now look at the American IT industry in a similar light. American companies have been pretending to offer a superior product for a superior price while simultaneously cutting costs and cheating customers. Do you think IBM respects its customers? They don’t. But what if they did? What if IBM — or any other U.S. IT services company for that matter — actually offered the kind of customer service they pretend they do? What if they solved customer problems instantly? What if they anticipated customer problems and solved them before those problems even appeared? You think that can’t be done? It can be done. And the company that can do it will be able to charge whatever they like and customers will gladly pay it.

True mastery, that’s what we’ve lost. No, we haven’t lost it: we threw it away.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>corporatism business-culture cultural-assumptions financial-crisis bigger-than-just-that</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:819ababf6bca/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:corporatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:business-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:financial-crisis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bigger-than-just-that"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit">
    <title>Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit - The Baffler</title>
    <dc:date>2015-06-23T21:52:38+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[That last word—simulate—is key. The technologies that have advanced since the seventies are mainly either medical technologies or information technologies—largely, technologies of simulation. They are technologies of what Jean Baudrillard and Umberto Eco called the “hyper-real,” the ability to make imitations that are more realistic than originals. The postmodern sensibility, the feeling that we had somehow broken into an unprecedented new historical period in which we understood that there is nothing new; that grand historical narratives of progress and liberation were meaningless; that everything now was simulation, ironic repetition, fragmentation, and pastiche—all this makes sense in a technological environment in which the only breakthroughs were those that made it easier to create, transfer, and rearrange virtual projections of things that either already existed, or, we came to realize, never would. Surely, if we were vacationing in geodesic domes on Mars or toting about pocket-size nuclear fusion plants or telekinetic mind-reading devices no one would ever have been talking like this. The postmodern moment was a desperate way to take what could otherwise only be felt as a bitter disappointment and to dress it up as something epochal, exciting, and new.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>hyperreality engineering-criticism technology cultural-assumptions economics david-graeber</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:c984a9d1aa9a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:hyperreality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:engineering-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:david-graeber"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://strangehorizons.com/2015/20150615/valentine-c.shtml">
    <title>Strange Horizons Columns: Intertitles: Have Courage: Ex Machina, Cinderella, and the Construction of the Feminine Identity, by Genevieve Valentine</title>
    <dc:date>2015-06-22T11:21:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://strangehorizons.com/2015/20150615/valentine-c.shtml</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Ex Machina's idea of a happy ending is startling, but makes sense in the context of its subversive third act, openly engaging the nature of patriarchal power over women's identities. And it borrows several of Cinderella's archetypes in an attempt to turn them on their sides. Most crucially, Ava's idea of freedom is having the power to be unkind. The movie suggests that, given Nathan's sadistic treatment of the many women he has made, Ava's ruthlessness is as much learned as it is innate; courage, though, she certainly has. She manipulates Caleb and joins forces with one of Nathan's earlier models (a stepsister, of sorts) to break free and remove Nathan. She even undergoes another transformation, this time peeling the skin from her predecessors—arranged in Nathan's bedroom like the trophies they are, each the embodiment of a sexual type—and applying it to herself, gifting herself with an outward humanity. (There's even a beautiful dress she puts on, for no one's benefit but her own.) The only unknown quantity is the prince, but in this telling, the transformation precludes another person; she locks Caleb in her underground prison, and makes her way to the surface, the only survivor in town.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>literary-criticism film cultural-assumptions tropes-and-themes</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:4faa6623b597/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:literary-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:film"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:tropes-and-themes"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=19371">
    <title>Language Log » Shakespeare's formless plays and the degenerate 18th century in France</title>
    <dc:date>2015-06-14T13:02:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=19371</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[[Warning: I found this interesting, as a reflection of one influential intellectual bureaucrat's thinking in the France of 1803 — the year of the Louisiana Purchase, the Haitian Revolution, and the start of the Napoleonic Wars. It's surprising that in 1803, just 14 years after the French revolution, the man in charge of public education in the Paris area is pining in print for the perfect politeness of Louis XIV's court, and railing against the "empty theories" of 18th-century political philosophy. Petitot's opinions about socio-culture degeneration strike me as analogous, mutatis mutandis, to those of some figures on the current American political scene. But you may well disagree, certainly about the interest and perhaps also about the analogy.]


]]></description>
<dc:subject>as-she-is-spoke history nanohistory cultural-assumptions public-policy language prescriptivism</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:baedac0e2b70/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:as-she-is-spoke"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:nanohistory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:public-policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:language"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:prescriptivism"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-death-of-internet-pre-mortem.html">
    <title>The Archdruid Report: The Death of the Internet: A Pre-Mortem</title>
    <dc:date>2015-05-06T10:41:36+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-death-of-internet-pre-mortem.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[All this has been on my mind of late as I’ve considered the future of the internet. The comparison may seem far-fetched, but then that’s what supporters of the SST would have said if anyone had compared the Boeing 2707 to, say, the zeppelin, another wave of the future that turned out to make too little economic sense to matter. Granted, the internet isn’t a subsidy dumpster, and it’s also much more complex than the SST; if anything, it might be compared to the entire system of commercial air travel, which we still have with us or the moment. Nonetheless, a strong case can be made that the internet, like the SST, doesn’t actually make economic sense; it’s being propped up by a set of financial gimmickry with a distinct resemblance to smoke and mirrors; and when those go away—and they will—much of what makes the internet so central a part of pop culture will go away as well.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>post-normal economics public-policy disaster-blindness disintermediation-targets cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:9c52d3f58ab5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:post-normal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:public-policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disaster-blindness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-targets"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17916">
    <title>Language Log » Reliability</title>
    <dc:date>2015-03-03T11:29:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17916</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[But in my opinion, the central issues in this area are not statistical but cultural. And what I learned at the workshop confirmed this belief.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture science philosophy-of-science the-mangle-in-practice cultural-assumptions authority Misrepresentations</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:1e646cd93370/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:authority"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Misrepresentations"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0629">
    <title>[1401.0629] Of course we share! Testing Assumptions about Social Tagging Systems</title>
    <dc:date>2014-11-19T12:30:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0629</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Social tagging systems have established themselves as an important part in today's web and have attracted the interest from our research community in a variety of investigations. The overall vision of our community is that simply through interactions with the system, i.e., through tagging and sharing of resources, users would contribute to building useful semantic structures as well as resource indexes using uncontrolled vocabulary not only due to the easy-to-use mechanics. Henceforth, a variety of assumptions about social tagging systems have emerged, yet testing them has been difficult due to the absence of suitable data. In this work we thoroughly investigate three available assumptions - e.g., is a tagging system really social? - by examining live log data gathered from the real-world public social tagging system BibSonomy. Our empirical results indicate that while some of these assumptions hold to a certain extent, other assumptions need to be reflected and viewed in a very critical light. Our observations have implications for the design of future search and other algorithms to better reflect the actual user behavior.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>tagging social-networks social-norms cultural-assumptions rather-interesting experiment crowdsourcing</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:0244e33abf91/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:tagging"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:experiment"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:crowdsourcing"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/on-its-head/">
    <title>On Its Head | Unreal Nature</title>
    <dc:date>2014-11-12T13:08:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/on-its-head/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[… Because of its focus on singularity, the monograph carried the potential of turning the study of art on its head. It could throw into doubt any number of more rigid constructions. It contained points of excess, instability, and differentiation that could not be so easily squared. It exposed as limited and arbitrary the assumption that artworks can be better evaluated when classified according to schools and countries and seen as parts of a linear, chronological history. It indicated that the construction of art historical sequences and genealogies among artists might not be enough to unravel the artistic phenomena. It shook the faith in external, homogenizing criteria that seek to prescribe or ascribe what art is.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>literary-criticism monographs cultural-norms cultural-assumptions the-mangle-in-practice consider:engineering Coscience</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e5279b5aaf34/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:literary-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:monographs"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:engineering"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Coscience"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/excess-and-instability/">
    <title>Excess and Instability | Unreal Nature</title>
    <dc:date>2014-10-17T10:45:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/excess-and-instability/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[… as issues of identity and “someoneness” became crucial or even overcame other kinds of preoccupations, the monograph deepened its focus on the thin divide between life and work. It looked for places where the biographical and artistic realms could be reunited. The artwork stopped appearing as a means of representation — the duplicate of a world out there or the mirror of a subject’s preexisting creation — to reveal its potential as the vessel of life and the site of presence coming to being and disseminating itself into the world.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>history-of-art literary-criticism models-and-modes cultural-assumptions the-meaning-of-books rather-interesting</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:1bc5d857e4c9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history-of-art"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:literary-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:models-and-modes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-meaning-of-books"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-genius.html?smid=tw-share&amp;_r=4">
    <title>The End of ‘Genius’ - NYTimes.com</title>
    <dc:date>2014-07-25T12:28:40+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-genius.html?smid=tw-share&amp;_r=4</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In fact, none of these men were alone in the garrets of their minds. Freud developed psychoanalysis in a heated exchange with the physician Wilhelm Fliess, whom Freud called the “godfather” of “The Interpretation of Dreams”; King co-led the civil rights movement with Ralph Abernathy (“My dearest friend and cellmate,” King said). Picasso had an overt collaboration with Georges Braque — they made Cubism together — and a rivalry with Henri Matisse so influential that we can fairly call it an adversarial collaboration. Even Einstein, for all his solitude, worked out the theory of relativity in conversation with the engineer Michele Besso, whom he praised as “the best sounding board in Europe.”

]]></description>
<dc:subject>cultural-assumptions genius worklife social-norms collaboration mythology social-psychology</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:89a30765b63c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:genius"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:collaboration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mythology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-psychology"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/too-beautiful-to-be-real/">
    <title>Too Beautiful to Be Real | Unreal Nature</title>
    <dc:date>2014-07-03T11:22:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/too-beautiful-to-be-real/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[… Napoleon’s biography is not only true but probable. On the other hand, one would say that the world of the Iliad, whose temporality is that of tales and where gods enter into human affairs, is a fictional universe. Indeed; but Madame Bovary truly believed that Naples was a different world from our own. There happiness flourished twenty-four hours a day with the density of a Sartrean en-soi. Others have believed that in Maoist China men and things do not have the same humble, quotidian reality that they have here at home; unfortunately, they take this fairy-tale truth for a program of political truth. A world cannot be inherently fictional; it can be fictional only according to whether one believes in it or not.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>belief worldview cultural-assumptions narrative literary-criticism his</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:049702d0e6bd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:belief"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worldview"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:narrative"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:literary-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:his"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://notesonatheory.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/culture-of-smartness/">
    <title>Wall Street and the School House Part I: The Culture of Smartness | Notes on a Theory...</title>
    <dc:date>2014-06-03T10:39:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://notesonatheory.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/culture-of-smartness/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[But the culture of smartness is not just found at the top.  Teach for America (TFA) is a nonprofit with origins in a Princeton undergraduate thesis by its founder, Wendy Kopp. It places recent graduates, generally without education backgrounds, as teachers across the country.  TFA claims it recruits “a diverse group of leaders with a record of achievement” (just not in educating), and Kopp explained TFA was designed to “make teaching in low-income communities an attractive choice for top grads by surrounding it with an aura of status and selectivity.” While part of the original justification for TFA was that it would address shortages of teachers in particular localities, in an environment where school closures and massive teacher firings, it’s hard to suggest this is a real problem. Instead, TFA teachers are being brought into cities like Chicago, where they are replacing far more experienced educators, who often were trained at less prestigious institutions.  Like Wall Street recruits, they go through a brief  five-week training, under the assumption that smart, ambitious young people can better address student needs than those with education degrees and experience.  And interestingly, for many, after their two-year stint (assuming they make it that long), they move on Wall Street.  But TFA also prides itself with the role its members play in education reform after leaving their teaching positions. As Kenzo Shibata explained, “TFA is a self-perpetuating organization. Teach for two years, burn out, go to law school, become a policy maker, and make policies that expand TFA.”

]]></description>
<dc:subject>public-policy cultural-norms cultural-assumptions entrepreneurship-as-pathology solutionism financial-crisis interesting sociology</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:6d8bdbc34b89/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:public-policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:entrepreneurship-as-pathology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:solutionism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:financial-crisis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2014/01/01/free-as-in-agent/">
    <title>Free, as in Agent</title>
    <dc:date>2014-01-24T11:40:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2014/01/01/free-as-in-agent/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[If your choices reflect rebellious rejection of an oppressive old narrative of work, or an eager reaching for a new narrative of work you aspire to, they are not free choices, and you are not a free agent. You are bullshitting yourself.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>worklife self-image cultural-norms cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ce502ec3e294/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:self-image"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7224">
    <title>[1304.7224] PAV ontology: Provenance, Authoring and Versioning</title>
    <dc:date>2014-01-18T14:49:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7224</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Provenance is a critical ingredient for establishing trust of published scientific content. This is true whether we are considering a data set, a computational workflow, a peer-reviewed publication or a simple scientific claim with supportive evidence. Existing vocabularies such as DC Terms and the W3C PROV-O are domain-independent and general-purpose and they allow and encourage for extensions to cover more specific needs. We identify the specific need for identifying or distinguishing between the various roles assumed by agents manipulating digital artifacts, such as author, contributor and curator. 
We present the Provenance, Authoring and Versioning ontology (PAV): a lightweight ontology for capturing just enough descriptions essential for tracking the provenance, authoring and versioning of web resources. We argue that such descriptions are essential for digital scientific content. PAV distinguishes between contributors, authors and curators of content and creators of representations in addition to the provenance of originating resources that have been accessed, transformed and consumed. We explore five projects (and communities) that have adopted PAV illustrating their usage through concrete examples. Moreover, we present mappings that show how PAV extends the PROV-O ontology to support broader interoperability. 
The authors strived to keep PAV lightweight and compact by including only those terms that have demonstrated to be pragmatically useful in existing applications, and by recommending terms from existing ontologies when plausible. 
We analyze and compare PAV with related approaches, namely Provenance Vocabulary, DC Terms and BIBFRAME. We identify similarities and analyze their differences with PAV, outlining strengths and weaknesses of our proposed model. We specify SKOS mappings that align PAV with DC Terms.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>algorithms data-access oh-dear-oh-dear cultural-assumptions record-keeping amusing-if-only-for-the-blinders because-SCIENCE! archives information-architecture library-science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:8455e506aa84/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:algorithms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:data-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:oh-dear-oh-dear"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:record-keeping"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:amusing-if-only-for-the-blinders"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:because-SCIENCE!"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:archives"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:information-architecture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:library-science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://al3x.net/2013/12/18/bitcoin.html">
    <title>Alex Payne — Bitcoin, Magical Thinking, and Political Ideology</title>
    <dc:date>2014-01-18T13:21:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://al3x.net/2013/12/18/bitcoin.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Far from a “breakthrough”, Bitcoin is viewed by many technologists as an intellectual sinkhole. A person’s sincere interest in Bitcoin is evidence that they are disconnected from the financial problems most people face while lacking a fundamental understanding of the role and function of central banking. The only thing “profound” about Bitcoin is its community’s near-total obliviousness to reality.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>economics libertarianism bitcoin cultural-assumptions startup-culture-must-die</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:f44b679d53fc/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:libertarianism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bitcoin"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:startup-culture-must-die"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://itself.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/my-power-is-made-perfect-in-weakness-on-institutional-breakdown/">
    <title>“My power is made perfect in weakness”: On institutional breakdown | An und für sich</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-26T11:22:47+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://itself.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/my-power-is-made-perfect-in-weakness-on-institutional-breakdown/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[If institutions make their demands more strongly felt precisely when they’re failing to deliver on their promises, it seems that the reverse would also hold: we are more able to reform our institutions when their hold feels less urgent. I imagine that much of the strong regulation of capitalism during the Cold War era came from the existence of a living, breathing alternative to the free market — even if the Soviet model did not seem desirable compared to the US model, everyone could tell that the USSR was not a post-apocalyptic hellscape. During the financial crisis, by contrast, it was commonplace to hear people say that if a key financial apparatus broke down, we simply “wouldn’t have an economy anymore.”

]]></description>
<dc:subject>cultural-assumptions institutional-design compare-and-contrast insight political-economy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ac7cc3defbf6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:institutional-design"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:compare-and-contrast"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:insight"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2013/11/unavoidable-failure.html">
    <title>Stumbling and Mumbling: Unavoidable failure</title>
    <dc:date>2013-11-21T13:06:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2013/11/unavoidable-failure.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[And bosses are like politicians in at least two respects; they too misunderstand the basic maths which warns that planning is failure-prone. And they too are selected to be overconfident about their chances of success.

Perhaps, then, politicians, journalists and the media share a common ideology - a presumption that top-down management can competently oversee complex events to a greater extent than is the case. This presumption leads then to fail to see that what makes the private sector successful - insofar as it is - is not so much the quality of management as the existence of markets. The general public might have anti-market attitudes - but so too does the ruling elite.]]></description>
<dc:subject>planning politics management central-planning cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:0fbb117013e7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:planning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:management"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:central-planning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://pro.gigaom.com/blog/a-reworking-of-work/">
    <title>We don’t need a rethinking of management. We need a reworking of work. — GigaOM Pro</title>
    <dc:date>2013-10-06T12:13:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://pro.gigaom.com/blog/a-reworking-of-work/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The creative, cognitive work that most workers perform is increasingly indistinguishable from what managers do, except the creative/cognitive worker is managing their own work, and cooperatively co-managing the work of those that they are connected with. Some of these people are called managers, but less so all the time. Management is becoming a distributed and emergent property of people working in social networks, instead of an extrinsic and imposed property of hierarchy.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>postnormal worklife business-culture cultural-assumptions peer-production</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:824cf08db73a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:postnormal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:business-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:peer-production"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://blog.chabris.com/2013/10/why-malcolm-gladwell-matters-and-why.html">
    <title> Christopher Chabris: Why Malcolm Gladwell Matters (And Why That's Unfortunate)</title>
    <dc:date>2013-10-05T11:43:38+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://blog.chabris.com/2013/10/why-malcolm-gladwell-matters-and-why.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Who are those people? They are the readers who will take Gladwell's laws, rules, and causal theories seriously; they will tweet them to the world, preach them to their underlings and colleagues, write them up in their own books and articles (David Brooks relied on Gladwell's claims more than once in his last book), and let them infiltrate their own decision-making processes. These are the people who will learn to trust their guts (Blink), search out and lavish attention and money on fictitious "influencers" (The Tipping Point), celebrate neurological problems rather than treat them (David and Goliath), and fail to pay attention to talent and potential because they think personal triumph results just from luck and hard work (Outliers). It doesn't matter if these are misreadings or imprecise readings of what Gladwell is saying in these books—they are common readings, and I think they are more common among exactly those readers Gladwell says are his audience.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>popularization Malcolm-Gladwell cultural-assumptions oversimplification models-and-modes</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:bfe18b6cc36e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:popularization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Malcolm-Gladwell"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:oversimplification"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:models-and-modes"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2013/09/the-management-question.html">
    <title>Stumbling and Mumbling: The management question</title>
    <dc:date>2013-09-14T19:55:07+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2013/09/the-management-question.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[However, the point of this post is not to claim this definitively, but merely to point out that we have a reasonable question here which is not being asked by the mainstream media. The BBC story is framed in conventional journalistic terms - "who knew what and when" - as a story only about the BBC. The question of whether it tells us anything about management more generally is not asked. The ideology of leadership is so dominant that the media and political class cannot even see that it is questionable.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>worklife cultural-assumptions economics capitalism the-unasked-question</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:fc9eb536e58d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:capitalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-unasked-question"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://the-pastry-box-project.net/allen-tan/2013-august-22/">
    <title>The Pastry Box Project | 22 August 2013, baked by Allen Tan</title>
    <dc:date>2013-08-22T22:20:56+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://the-pastry-box-project.net/allen-tan/2013-august-22/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Since when did this become weakness? Maybe these people’s biggest problem is needing more courage or less self-doubt, or maybe they’re just playing for entirely different stakes. If you don’t know for sure, then this is a failure of empathy.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy risk startup-culture-must-die cultural-assumptions academic-c</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:19adb01fb6a0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:risk"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:startup-culture-must-die"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-c"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.rsablogs.org.uk/2013/enterprise/kid-job-career/">
    <title>Will your kid get a job or have a career? : RSA blogs</title>
    <dc:date>2013-08-18T15:18:28+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.rsablogs.org.uk/2013/enterprise/kid-job-career/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[It may sound as if the concern here is with elitism within education but that isn’t right. It’s a concern at elitism for a few and mediocrity for the rest. The real concern is the lack of appreciation there may be for the diversity of routes to success increasingly available to our young people. It’s not about ‘parity of esteem’; it’s about understanding different routes to success.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>education academia academia-doesn't-guarantee-acuity cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:54e7a424508b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:education"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia-doesn't-guarantee-acuity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>