Not OP, but breadth and depth of understanding about psychology have improved dramatically and exposure to diverse viewpoints thanks to hyper connectedness likely make it possible to go deeper.
In my opinion, all the best art expresses the "unknown knowns" of the human, i.e., the unconscious that has not been brought to light. Art is an expression of what is really true but not known. Knowing about it doesn't make it easier to express. To bring up the old trope, the curtains are never just blue, not in the sense that the artist is always putting in some conscious meaning, but that the choice of blue says something about the artist's human feeling even if they didn't intend it
> breadth and depth of understanding about psychology have improved dramatically
Provide one tiny bit of evidence for this. Do you seriously think that Shakespeare (for e.g.) did not have a profound understanding of human psychology?
not who you are replying to - but:
Shakespeare was limited by the number of interactions he had with humans. He did not have the internet.
We also have neurology as a science now. So that's one bit of evidence for the claim.
Of course Shakespeare had a profound understanding of human nature. And of course he did not have the working vocabulary and knowledge base of modern psychology which has been built up over time by many humans working together. Two things can be true.
> not who you are replying to - but: Shakespeare was limited by the number of interactions he had with humans. He did not have the internet.
The internet may increase the number of interactions, but decreases their quality.
Looking at most online interactions it looks to me that people show less empathy and understanding than they do IRL.
> Of course Shakespeare had a profound understanding of human nature. And of course he did not have the working vocabulary and knowledge base of modern psychology which has been built up over time by many humans working together. Two things can be true.
Does that help write better books. If the claim was true the best fiction would be written by psychologists and neurologists. Is it?
I think that knowledge is on the wrong side (for writing fiction) of Chesterton's distinction (in a work of fiction - I cannot remember which Fr Brown story) between understanding someone from the inside with empathy and from the outside with analysis.
Hard disagree. I made an analogy in another reply to Monet not knowing quantum physics. Lacking that information didn’t deter his famous explorations of light effects.
Humans are great at figuring out how things behave before we have a great model of why they do it. And by Shakespeare’s time, we had a pretty good grasp on practical human psychology, even if we had less understanding of the mechanisms behind it.
We are excellent at figuring things out. We get better at it over time, as we grow our collective knowledge base.
I agree that we are great at figuring out things before we have a model of why things work. And we have a mountain of context to work from already. Shakespeare wasn't an idiot, and he wasn't in a vacuum but his 'context window' was 'smaller' than a lot of people today(quotes because dubious terminology).
Art is improving. Science is improving. human understanding, and communication of that understanding is improving too. That is my point.
I won't argue against that at all. Someday we're going to have someone with Shakespeare's brilliance and modern foundations, and I can't wait to see what that looks like.
(And maybe we already do have that person. I'm shamefully out of date with modern literature.)
> Of course Shakespeare had a profound understanding of human nature. And of course he did not have the working vocabulary and knowledge base of modern psychology which has been built up over time by many humans working together. Two things can be true.
Yes, but this doesn't prove that a modern author could produce a better text than a historically great author, which was the original line of thought. Or is there a specific modern text that you have in mind that proves the point?
Then every text book is an example of this measure of better improving over time...
How about 'more representative of the human experience'... (or enjoy/like more)
Then we measure how well a human relates to a book: which is taste, a subjective quality that is notoriously hard to measure in any meaningful way. This measure becomes not a single measure, but a collective measure against the sum of humans who interact with it: an untenable standard - and biased towards the present anyway - which doesn't give charity to your position.
...So how do you measure a book to be 'better'? That's the neat part: you don't. You can measure what you 'like' more, you can measure 'features'... but we probably won't even agree on what makes a book 'better'. We like what we like, and most of us have a hard time even explaining why we like something.
The conflicts in his plays just aren't that profound, you know? Compared to modern "psychological turmoil" it's relatively simplistic, something like Macbeth's "ambition vs morality".
Modern writers pull in more layers of depth, explain the ebbs and flows of motivations and identities through social forces and work more with complex ideas like self-deception and rationalization. Shakespeare's characters are generally reliable narrators in a way that later lit tends not to be.
> You can read every business book with this filter, and you get much more out of them for it.
I agree with everything you wrote up until this sentence. My takeaway was that there is nearly nothing to get out of them so I stopped reading them. With the filter on that you describe what do you ultimately get out of reading them?
Presumably the claimants in the many lawsuits would now own any IP, or a receiver holds that IP in trust for the claimants so that any revenue derived from the IP goes to the claimants.
The equity holders have surely been totally wiped out and have no further claim.
The filter mentioned at least twice here. I like the idea. Currently it's taking all the heart rate measurements, because my initial idea was to track also for people who do not activly switch on workouts when they are doing sport. But for people who do propert tracking they want just to include "cardio sports" probably
Does same property really guarantee safety? I have 5 acres and so could easily be on my property but much farther away than a neighbour in a more condensed neighbourhood.
What if someone was in an apartment building and “next door” was the other side of a shared wall?
Most of the laws refence being attended by an adult or being in line of sight. It's most likely that the authorities would charge you in either example you gave.
The strategy is to sow fear and uncertainty to drive capital from stocks to government bonds and drive down the bond yield. Bessant is pretty clear about this. Once they get the bond yields down and refinance a lot of the short term debt into longer term debt they free up operating budget. Combine with Elon’s DOGE cutting costs and Lutnick raising some capital from tariffs, and it is a pretty good strategy. I don’t agree with Trump’s policies generally nor am I American, but this is a good short term strategy.
It's not a good short term strategy at all. If that's really the goal, their left and right hands need to have a chat because one of them's going to make the deficit way worse, so if the other's goal is to "free up operating budget" by reducing debt service they really ought to get on the same page, because anything "freed up" is going to be eaten by the other bullshit they're doing.
Besides, this is a wildly expensive way to go about it. The harm to receipts from the economic uncertainty will blow a hole in the federal budget and leave states reeling (to say nothing of the "other hand" making cuts at the IRS, which will also be a net cost)
Great strategy, except its not working. Bond yields are up (probably because foreigners and foreign countries are selling US bonds). DOGE cost cuts are insignificant. Raising capital from tariffs doesn't seem to be working because they're really taxes, and Americans don't like taxes.
This is exactly the strategy but it is failing miserably.
The reason for the pivot was because the 10-30 year yields didn't come down, the price on the 30 year got crushed. The 30 year almost went back to the lows.
There was literally no flight to safety. Completely the opposite.
> I don’t agree with Trump’s policies generally nor am I American, but this is a good short term strategy.
This strategy has failed spectacularly, as bond yields are still up and treasuries are sold like crazy. US treasuries are no longer seen as safe havens. People rather invest in gold or treasuries from other countries which are not led by a corrupt government. Buying US treasuries is now seen as "lending Trump money", and since Trump runs the US economy exactly like he ran his companies, where IIRC he defaulted on debt at least six times, US treasuries are now a rather risky investment.
