my job is to understand the world. explanations that are simple—by whatever crooked metric evolution has inspired—are more aesthetic, but also more useful. they are more readily recalled, and more easily applied. moreover, when queried, they are not content to issue a dry response; they rather sing with detail.
“good story” means this: “early in the mind’s inductive bias”.
one must not discard verisimilitude. and of course a story is not itself evidence—one should take care not to treat priors as new information. but i don’t find it appropriate to discount “good story” as a useful measure, when organizing thoughts, or communicating that organization.
my job is to understand the world. explanations that are simple—by whatever crooked metric evolution has inspired—are more aesthetic, but also more useful. they are more readily recalled, and more easily applied. moreover, when queried, they are not content to issue a dry response; they rather sing with detail.
“good story” means this: “early in the mind’s inductive bias”.
one must not discard verisimilitude. and of course a story is not itself evidence—one should take care not to treat priors as new information. but i don’t find it appropriate to discount “good story” as a useful measure, when organizing thoughts, or communicating that organization.