- continuing from here
• the issue with the “feynman idea” of explaining things so that a child can understand something
• is that there’s often a tradeoff of whether to continue to go further beyond the inferential frontier
• while also bridging inferential tethers to those closer to the edge of the frontier, so there’s some semantical representations that can form connective tissue
• as a “testbed” for
“knowing the words” to explain what is learned beyond the frontier to a wider and wider group of people
• one way to resolve this is via a group of experts (professors, other PhDs, other investors, other founders, other scientists)
• that is the most common methodology
• another methodology is via consilience and treating various fields pointing to the same findings as an empirical basis for evidence
• the advantage here is being able to go further alone
• and then trace back with vertical experts across various fields
• this it’s possible to create “weighting of evidence” across fields across multiple frontier folks
• this reduces the burden of evidence for a single person or single group to confirm learnings/discoveries via wayfinding (referred in previous posts as discursive thought or research or venture backed startup)
here’s the issue: “to go fast, go alone; to go far, go together”
this tradeoff can be resolved by combining the above two methodologies
find experts in every domain/vertical
stream out your thoughts to them
let them know they have no expectation of response
and that they don’t even have to read, like a news feed, but they can respond if they want/like
now verify learnings across all the fields
you can scaffold evidence across various fields
for anything that is an output of multiple fields/perspectives
like our conscience co-created experience (governance, society, economics, finance, technology, etc)