Form is insight: the bow to arrow paradox
[ by Charles Cameron — a post in my importance of form in intelligence series — ]
.
Ben Turner‘s tweet today —
neatly encapsulates the “counterintuitive” paradox by which bow and arrows — and catapults too, for that matter — work. You pull back to send forwards.
**
The Chicago Tribune report which Turner links to contains the following paragraphs:
Gurdon spoke of his own unlikely career as a young man who loved science but was steered away from it at school, only to take it up again at university.
He still keeps an old school report in a frame on his desk: “I believe he has ideas about becoming a scientist… This is quite ridiculous,” his teacher wrote. “It would be a sheer waste of time, both on his part and of those who have to teach him.”
What’s funny here is that our new-minted Nobelist liked this comment well enough to frame it. He has shown the teacher in question to be wrong, no doubt about it, and perhaps given others who have received similarly negative advice some encouragement along the way.
But here’s my question: did that unflattering report somehow propel him to greater effort?
**
For your thinking pleasure in the matter of the bow to arrow paradox:
reverse psychology
blowback
reculer pour mieux sauter
counterintuitive
unintended consequences
It’s really quite a party for the party-going mind. Does your mind party?
**
There will be more posts in this “form is insight” series, as time and tide permit.
October 8th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Hi Charles,
.
Interesting post. I saw you tagged this post with “prediction” and was reminded of Critt Jarvis’ fascination with Polanyi’s anticipatory intuition. Not in line with your post, strictly speaking, but perhaps part of the “form of insight” can be summed up in this John Boyd quote that both Critt and I are fond of (the essential basis for my soon-to-be finished book):
.
To flourish and grow in a many-sided uncertain ever changing world that surrounds us, suggests that we have to make intuitive within ourselves those many practices we need to meet the exigencies of that world. (emphasis added)
.
“…to make intuitive those many practices…” is a fancy way of saying we must develop many habits (of the mind and otherwise) to “meet the exigencies” of our ever-changing world. Insight is a key element, and the form, as it were, is often as variable as the paradoxical example you provide.
October 8th, 2012 at 10:57 pm
For more thoughts on the subject see Scott Barry Kaufman’s article “Confessions of a late Bloomer”
“This is you,” the elderly school psychologist said as he pushed up his horn-rimmed glasses and pointed to the left side of what looked like the outline of a camel’s hump. I sat closer, trying to make sense of what I was being shown. “And this,” he said, moving his finger toward the far right of the hump, “is gifted.” …
other of his relevant articles are categorized, listed and linked on his blog.
October 9th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Not to trump the horn too much, but the idea of performativity, as it is often explored in the sociological and cultural senses, would add to the questions raised here.
.
We are familiar with the, er, familiar idea of opposition becoming a form of support. I.e., the moment I react to you, to oppose you, you have in some way predetermined my own actions in opposition since I must fit my opposition to your position. Think of it in terms of pegs and holes, and say we are in conflict: You throw out a round hole and scream, “Aha!” and I, to counter that, produce a round peg and say back, “Not so fast!” I could have done my own thing and produced a star-shaped peg out of intransigence and petulance—but there again, your decision would have informed my reaction (without determining it, maybe, although the lines blur, which I think is part of your point.)
.
In the larger, broader, and I would say ubiquitous operation of performativity in human societies, one may speculate on what are the fulcrums around which multiple people orient. For instance, on the hole-peg example, what is the fulcrum? One could as easily say that the first person’s anticipation of the other person’s possession of some kind of peg informed his decision to offer some kind of hole in the first place—i.e., that the second person predetermined the actions of the first person. In fact, one humorous and, I think, point blank summation of this, er, queer fulcrum issue was presented by Judith Butler when she said, “gay is to straight not as copy is to original, but rather, as copy is to copy.” (In cruder terms, gays and straights gain, in part, their idea of “gay” and “straight” by comparison to the other, gay to straight and straight to gay, but both are mere…copies of something else. It is at least an entertaining mental exercise.) You could expand to consideration to other areas: To what degree is the Democrat party predetermined by the Republican party, and vice versa? To what degree did early Jews define themselves on the basis of what other cultures and religions surrounded them? But these questions become ever more complex with the addition of duration, or time: Republicans today are not what they were in Lincoln’s time and may not be what Republicans 50 years from now will be—neither, Democrats.
October 9th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
May not have been clear on “familiar idea of opposition becoming a form of support.” I meant, essentially, that by choosing to oppose, one offers support of what one opposes. In the first case, you are saying that whatever you are opposing is worth the effort of opposing: it has worth. In the second, your decision to match it (round peg for round hole) gives legitimacy to it. Etc.
October 9th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Not to hog the thread or anything, but consider: Your use of “form” in the title, and my use of “inform.”
.
And, of course, there is “information.”
.
One approach to understanding the idea of performativity (per-form-ativity) would begin with separating the mere data from the role that the data plays in human activity and interactivity. The original use of the idea of performativity concerned merely a type of contractual word-action: “I accuse you!” states not only that I am accusing you (its meaning) but also performs the act of accusing you. So there is data (its meaning) and there is an action (how we react to data.)
.
For me, the important thing is to remember that there is no data without action/reaction. You might say, no data when observed fails to be a “performance.” It “informs” us. When we react to it, our own actions could be viewed merely in terms of data, but importantly any other observers (and even ourselves insofar as we observe our own actions) see it as a performance. Form is given.
.
Now, you could go a step further and look at your word “insight…..” What do we see (sight) “in” the data we observe; how are we “informed.” And so forth.