Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

derekthompson.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 108 posts

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#31

Post by xnorswap »

kruffalon wrote: post #21

I'm having immense problems digesting this interview to understand the concept of the uni-context. It does sound very interesting and right up my alley. I also don't seem to be able to use internet search anymore (probably a user error) so if anyone has a link to a document, soundfile or video of Agnes Callard explaining the concept without the interuptions from a interviewer that is more interested in contributing t…

> I also don't seem to be able to use internet search anymore

A bit off topic, but you're not the only one. I've grown up with the internet and yet I'm now completely unable to find things on demand.

I sometimes resort to claude, not because I want to, but because it's so difficult to search the real internet now. Asking claude, then asking claude for sources, can uncover hidden gems. ( It can also reveal claude talking out of its arse. )

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#32

Post by tedggh »

I’m in month 5 of not having access to any social network, and although the first weeks I felt tempted to reinstall X and Reddit, I’m at a point where I don’t think I’m ever coming back. There are still great spaces like HN where you can consume content and participate in debates. I do miss some of the fun stuff, but it wasn’t worth being exposed to all the other crap for a few laughs a day.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#33

Post by arjie »

Like most of these things, one can bemoan it and say “oh it’s terrible that this is how it is” but I think it’s pretty easy to self-test this to see it’s adaptive for a reason.

Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla as CTO because of a small donation in favour of Prop 8. Fine?

I think most people here would say yes. In fact people did say that.

I think many people would say they don’t want to have a plumber who opposes (say) trans rights. Or read an author who is anti-gay. Pick some view heretical to your world-view and see if you can stand to encounter people who hold it.

If you require all purity you probably prefer the uni-context.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#34

Post by thomastjeffery »

It's a shame the title doesn't just include the word: "uni-context". It's a really useful and interesting perspective.

The other relevant word is "objectivity". There so many systems in our society whose context we surround ourselves with, it starts to feel like every subject is objective. The reality is that every subject is subjective.

I think one of the big drivers for this dynamic is that our social systems are facilitated with software, and we always make software as a uni-context. An application is a fixed context.

If we can figure out how to introduce subjectivity into software, that would be extremely useful for both computing and society.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#35

Post by ashu1461 »

pphysch wrote: post #11

This is an interesting perspective on the concept of "atomization of the individual", which the interview interestingly does not refer to. Both atomization and the "uni-context" arise from the destruction of an individual's local contexts, like family and community, leaving them an individual in a global, maximally-large pool of individuals, the so-called uni-context. Atomization has clear motivations: increasing the…

It also helps companies to exploit people easily. Example if you have are a fit person, then you should have an apple watch and now perhaps and oura ring as well.

Large companies and organisations are able to tap into our core emotions and needs of the human body and able to shape our day to day in a way we feel that we have the freedom to choose but in reality we are acting within hidden boundaries.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#36

Post by warshinder »

I think much of this might apply to Callard: her high public visibility in social media, the attention grabbing colorful attire, her as I recall public advocacy and openness about her own polyamorous lifestyle. I don’t think that’s typical. Certainly it’s not for me. I’d rather be Zelig. But I think most people code shift, and present different personas in private life compared to work. Probably much less so for the average substack author, so it surprises me little the idea might resonate with Derek Thompson, the blog’s author.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#37

Post by thomastjeffery »

resters wrote: post #29

There are some of us (late generation-X / early millennial) who saw this coming and still maintain a variety of separate identities across many domains. I don't know why someone would want to have the same identity in the workplace as on internet forums, for example. Social media appears to have given many people the idea that they ought to cultivate their public identity from an early age as preparation for internet…

Unfortunately that isn't a solution. When you keep separate identities, the only thing that can exist across platforms is your own participation. Everything you say and do is isolated to whichever identity and platform you are using in that moment. You still don't have the opportunity to exist completely, because your self has been fragmented. Even if you did manage to create a cross-platform identity, the product of your participation is fragmented, and every story you tell is objective to that platform's context. Even if you tell a story that links across platforms, you are still isolated to that specific cross-platform context.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#38

Post by warshinder »

jsisto wrote: post #27
bensyverson wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I’ve observed, people are increasingly checking out of social media (or turning their profiles private), because it’s just unappealing unless you’re actively promoting something.

This is the reason I am not on any socials. It is purely promotional

This is social media unless you change your nick often, but even then people run stylometric analysis all over this site. Nobody is truly anonymous on the internet.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#39

Post by dontwannahearit »

arjie wrote: post #33

Like most of these things, one can bemoan it and say “oh it’s terrible that this is how it is” but I think it’s pretty easy to self-test this to see it’s adaptive for a reason. Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla as CTO because of a small donation in favour of Prop 8. Fine? I think most people here would say yes. In fact people did say that. I think many people would say they don’t want to have a plumber who opposes…

But people can never be "pure" enough and what is acceptable in the uni-context will change over time. If you documented your life within it you will find you will be branded a heretic sooner or later.

Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context

#40

Post by giraffe_lady »

resters wrote: post #29

There are some of us (late generation-X / early millennial) who saw this coming and still maintain a variety of separate identities across many domains. I don't know why someone would want to have the same identity in the workplace as on internet forums, for example. Social media appears to have given many people the idea that they ought to cultivate their public identity from an early age as preparation for internet…

If you keep them distinct unification is a weapon to be used against you. You're writing your own blackmail someone just has to call you on it.

With prose fingerprinting, sophisticated tracking, now your identities are only separate by rapidly eroding social convention. Intentionally merging them allows you to have control over the process, and helps you maintain discipline about what you reveal where. If you don't do it it will be done to you.

Post reply on HN