Years of not-knowing in 1 diagramme; stacking spaces; desert salmon, observances of death, apples and flags ranked, radioactive fruit flies, wasps, and tumbleweeds, dubious assessments of AI.
black swans are often defined as improbable, rare, high-impact events. i'd say that any of the four categories of not-knowing can generate black swan events.
for instance, unexpectedly discovering a feasible way to control an atomic detonation is an action that generates an outcome (the possibility of unprecedentedly destructive detonations) which changes causal probabilities (e.g. suddenly changing the perceived strength of relationship between foreign policy strutting and the likelihood of existential hazard) and might result in an unexpected dramatic shift in the public sentiment and valuation of investment in national armament. each of these might be considered rare, improbable, high impact — all of them are black swan-like. but they emerge out of (and are produced by) not-knowing of, respectively, actions, outcomes, causation, and valuation.
time is a condition which often confuses how we think about events, especially about the nature of uncertainty that affects events. i wrote about that here: https://vaughntan.org/the-fog-of-time
i've always felt that black swan events are an accurate categorisation that hasn't yet been made precise enough to be useful.
i might understand what you are saying. what seems to be blocking me is that your taxonomy comes from the perspective of the one not-knowing (BTW - more categories when it is an institute?).
Black swan events come from an outside and, i guess, are expected to create uncertainty. but before they happen, there is still a possibility they will happen. and it is this possiblity i do not see in your taxonomy, though it may be spread among the different types of personal not-knowing.
the taxonomy certainly is from the perspective of the agent/actor who doesn’t know — from our perspective, it only matters (for decisionmaking) whether we face not-knowing about actions, outcomes, causation, or valuation (or all four). black swan events are exogenous, but they cause agents/actors to experience not-knowing of all four types.
possibly more categories is the actor is an organisation but i haven’t thought of any yet that affect orgs but not individuals also. what are you thinking of? share share
first regarding unknowing taxonomy. decision making seems to me to be focused on one decision, but not on planning or on strategic positioning. these are more general and occur before a decision is to be made, so i am not sure how to best apply your taxanomy.
With organizations (also with some people :)), there is a class of unknowns where parts of the organization know, but the organization as a whole does not know. but it could know - this depends on process, information flow. at least it has to do with knowing one's self. there also seem to be cases where none of the individuals actually understand what is going on, but the system as a whole is able to predict, act.
Love how you connect the dots between meaning-making and popularity of right-wing parties! Haven't dared clicked into your 4 essays on "not-knowing", but wondering if it's related to epistemic humility?
like the taxonomy of not knowing. not sure where black swan events fit in. in a particular slot (outcomes?) or are they orthogonal to this taxonomy?
black swans are often defined as improbable, rare, high-impact events. i'd say that any of the four categories of not-knowing can generate black swan events.
for instance, unexpectedly discovering a feasible way to control an atomic detonation is an action that generates an outcome (the possibility of unprecedentedly destructive detonations) which changes causal probabilities (e.g. suddenly changing the perceived strength of relationship between foreign policy strutting and the likelihood of existential hazard) and might result in an unexpected dramatic shift in the public sentiment and valuation of investment in national armament. each of these might be considered rare, improbable, high impact — all of them are black swan-like. but they emerge out of (and are produced by) not-knowing of, respectively, actions, outcomes, causation, and valuation.
time is a condition which often confuses how we think about events, especially about the nature of uncertainty that affects events. i wrote about that here: https://vaughntan.org/the-fog-of-time
i've always felt that black swan events are an accurate categorisation that hasn't yet been made precise enough to be useful.
i might understand what you are saying. what seems to be blocking me is that your taxonomy comes from the perspective of the one not-knowing (BTW - more categories when it is an institute?).
Black swan events come from an outside and, i guess, are expected to create uncertainty. but before they happen, there is still a possibility they will happen. and it is this possiblity i do not see in your taxonomy, though it may be spread among the different types of personal not-knowing.
the taxonomy certainly is from the perspective of the agent/actor who doesn’t know — from our perspective, it only matters (for decisionmaking) whether we face not-knowing about actions, outcomes, causation, or valuation (or all four). black swan events are exogenous, but they cause agents/actors to experience not-knowing of all four types.
possibly more categories is the actor is an organisation but i haven’t thought of any yet that affect orgs but not individuals also. what are you thinking of? share share
first regarding unknowing taxonomy. decision making seems to me to be focused on one decision, but not on planning or on strategic positioning. these are more general and occur before a decision is to be made, so i am not sure how to best apply your taxanomy.
With organizations (also with some people :)), there is a class of unknowns where parts of the organization know, but the organization as a whole does not know. but it could know - this depends on process, information flow. at least it has to do with knowing one's self. there also seem to be cases where none of the individuals actually understand what is going on, but the system as a whole is able to predict, act.
Love how you connect the dots between meaning-making and popularity of right-wing parties! Haven't dared clicked into your 4 essays on "not-knowing", but wondering if it's related to epistemic humility?
a robust not-knowing practice is definitely connected to epistemic humility!