I’d like to propose 2 topics for a future presentation. I’ve created a poll and I’d encourage people to choose None unless they are really keen on the other alternatives.
By way of context, the paragraphs below were posted by me directly to Brendan Graham Dempsey in relation to his latest publication in the Evolution of Meaning Series. One might argue that in the post I am describing an emergentist theory of stupidity.
=====
So here is something that just struck me going through Ch 1. Pretty easy reading for me. Why? Hundreds of hours of prerequisite reading, so references like “Plato”, “Locke”, “Kant”, “transjective”, “Azarian”, “Vervaeke”, “Shannon entropy”, “Boltzmann entropy”, “Baldwin”, “Piaget”, “assimilation”, “accommodation”, don’t send me scurrying to Wikipedia just to get through the page. (OK - I confess - I just went there for Bolzmann entropy to get more context). So in MHC terms, this book is pretty up there.
What intrigues me is the case of readers who start with your book, because they think MM is the latest thing, they liked you on a podcast, or somebody friended somebody, but in approaching this book, such a reader depending on age or academic background, might have gaping holes in the prerequisite knowledge needed to even decode the text. Is that reader’s resulting grasp of the book as complex as the book itself? If less complex, how might we characterize the resulting anti-complexification - flattening, skewing, truncating, smashing, puncturing, compressing? Lots of ways to misunderstand a complex argument! (Your writing is admirably clear and accessible, but the content itself is going to make its demands).
Thanks for the vote.
I dunno…isn’t stupidity just intelligence that has stopped listening? The wilful refusal to be open, instead to mindlessly repeat, or trigger react, and to be in a disconnected state from reality? I’m sure we could pull a lot of examples and case study, but to what purpose?
Digital Vigilantism, might be interesting if we look at the full arena. I could really do with more detail on what is going to be explored.
Rather than vote could I say Digital Vigilantism, IF the exploration is wide? Otherwise None.
Sorry to be a pedant. 
Digital Vigilanism is a case study about an experiment / project.
Stupidity is about emergent perspective on stupidty - so not what’s conventionally thougth of as stupidity.
None is about not wanting to see any of those.
I heard @Martin on stupidity (thank you!) a couple of weeks ago when we met up in London. His concept is more subtle than the common meaning of stupidity. But I guess I’m more interested in a case study, as we would have more embodied detail to talk around.
Hard to say. Interested in digital vigilantism particularly if there’s an AI angle
Interested in emergent stupidity particularly if there’s a connection to the idea of emergence in complexity/systems science.