It's utterly bizarre how people keep scape goating HR.
It's the typical situation that whenever HR goes out of their way to make "everyone" happy, no one says acknowledges it. But Management can hide behind "HR" and employees love blaming HR, because that is the person they interact with the most.
Yes, having studied psychology and neuroscience I get often frustrated how seemingly normal words take on highly specific and often contrasting meanings.
Reading article after article and realising that every author uses "attention', "perception", "motivation" in slightly shifted ways. In principle it makes sense that increased specificity is needed in a particular field. But when the meaning shifts meaningfully between author working on, ostensibly, the same topic the confusion is immense. I have no clue how to tackle this issue.
I came to the conclusion that I compress my experiences and rather than "reading them". I process them to subconsciously extract relevant patterns. If I need to remember what I ate on a certain date, I struggle and basically have to unpack the whole shebang.
There is a whole set of behavioural patterns I exhibit that all seem to tie into this. For example I have no sense for time on the scale of weeks or longer.
On the other hand I seem to remember "narrative background" well. E.g. What someone likes or doesn't like, where they're from etc. I also seem much better than others in remembering whether a topic already came up or not.
In terms of MBTI/Jungian Functions: I seem very much lead Ni.
Maybe we should. Irrespective of any concerns on the philosophical underpinnings of mathematics, there is an active discourse on the shortcomings of pedagogical resources. See for example Hung-Hsi Wu and his negative view of "Textbook School Mathematics (TSM)". His critique is aimed at the US. I am unfamiliar with any cohesive argumentation across for example European curricula.
Maybe. Consider for example Hossack (2020) Knowledge and Philosophy of Number. He indeed lays out a framework in which negative "numbers" aren't considered numbers, precisely because negative numbers combine a magnitude with a direction.
Thank you for your response. I see where you are coming from. I think because I don't interpret their text as saying that i is "half of -1" but "half of the rotation that would lead to -1" I consider your description equivalent. In fact I am struggling to interpret their text to say "half of -1". Regardless, I see your point.
I'm curious. I seem to be missing something, because I feel like what you're saying tracks very much with the "alternative interpretation". That is, I don't see the difference (in my mind's eye) at all. Is there maybe a different way to explain what you perceive to be critically different?
Ah. I now see this comment too. I think I understand your other statement about "scientifically supported" better. I have also read the book, and I feel it makes a lot of sense. Like I said in my other post: most discourse only acknowledges nominalism or platonism. Neither sat well with me.
Now following Hume and Locke "induction" is often treated as something "invalid", a problem to be solved. If induction is however is not a problem (see for example, Groarke, 2009, An Aristotelian Account of Induction). Aristotelian approaches are reasonable. Hence, numbers and other mathematical concepts can be very real.
1) I might be missing something, but as far as I can tell "scientific support" in this context seems ill defined. To the extent that it seems rather meaningless term (in this context)
2) While the vast majority of the discourse on the interpretation of mathematics oscillates (fruitlessly) between Platonism and Nominalism, I tend towards a more Aristotelian view. See for example
- Franklin: An Aristotelian Realist Philosophy of Mathematics
- Keith Hossack: Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number.
Note that these two authors do not converge on exactly the same interpretation.
Apropos: North (2021): Physics, Structure, and Reality explores the relationship between "mathematical structure" reality and theoretical physics.