
'We Like Lists Because We Don't Want to Die' - robg
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,659577,00.html
======
RyanMcGreal
> I was there alone recently, and I felt like a character in a Dan Brown
> novel.

A subtle nod, given that Brown's novels serve as a kind of poor man's
_Foucoult's Pendulum_.

~~~
murr
I always thought that _Focault's Pendulum_ was a kind of highbrow
_Illuminatus! Trilogy_

~~~
eru
I did not find the Pendulum more highbrow than the Trilogy.

------
c1sc0
And once you understand that lists can be nested things become really
interesting

~~~
xinsight
Even with nested lists, I'm still not clear why this is such a powerful
concept.

How do lists help us to think?

~~~
nazgulnarsil
before you have a solid ontological understanding of a concept, lacking
powerful descriptive axioms we're forced to rely on a list of characteristics
e.g. intrinsic properties, how it interacts with other objects, etc. if we
restrict ourselves to things we already have a vigorous understanding of how
will we consider new hypothesis?

I'm not sure if this is coming through right.

~~~
phr
Reminds me of interfaces in Google Go. No rigid class hierarchy to cram our
objects into. Just implement a list of methods and you're good.

------
RevRal
I'm a little sad that my best friend, the mind map, was not mentioned.
Wouldn't have been too useful in that interview anyway.

But as a writer, I have thought about this a lot. I call it "describing the
surrounding things." When I try to describe hard-to-describe things, I can see
the thing as a fuzzy hologram that looks different from different angles. You
can look at the hologram with different lenses as well. You can describe the
"arms" and "lenses" that you are viewing the hologram (idea... object) from.
But it is hard to find a satisfying description of the hologram itself.

That is why mind maps feel so organic to me. You have the hologram in the
center, and connected to it are the arms and lenses.

Ideas are not simple. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that you cannot
hold an idea in your mind as a single object. It is all a landscape. Think
about how Umberto Eco describes a painter framing a piece of a landscape.

Mind maps serve the same functions as nesting (thanks c1sc0 for bringing that
up), but they are easier to play with. And are, of course, translatable to
nests.

This is the first time I've written out my thoughts on lists like this; this
interview really made me smile. So I really hope that my description here
helps some of you visualize what Umberto is talking about.

*E: Some of you may be wondering why lists are so important, and I've gone through my post a couple of times and I really don't think it does lists justice. I'm going to have to come back to this....

------
tigerjk
This quote in his article was funny: "I realized immediately that the
exhibition would focus on lists. Why am I so interested in the subject? I
can't really say. I like lists for the same reason other people like football
or pedophilia. People have their preferences."

------
Alex3917
A good pattern helps us find lists, and a good list helps us find patterns.

And he's right that lists are seriously undervalued right now. The best way to
make a name for yourself in science is probably just by making lists. That was
Chomsky's whole thing, find a pattern and make a list of all the ways it can
occur. Anyone can do that, no genius necessary.

~~~
gruseom
_That was Chomsky's whole thing, find a pattern and make a list of all the
ways it can occur_

How does that describe generative grammar? There are an infinite number of
ways that can occur.

~~~
sjf
There is a finite number of rules, which produce an infinite number of
sentences. I suppose is what the parent meant.

~~~
Alex3917
Correct. It's like there are an infinite number of insights, but only a set
number of ways that something can be insightful. But if we make a list of ways
that something can be insightful, then we can still make a list of insights
generated in each specific way. And from this list we can probably create a
new set of patterns. Perhaps the sum of all human knowledge is infinite and
self-similar.

------
Raphael_Amiard
> Of course, nowadays I can find this kind of information on the Internet in
> no time. But, as I said, you never know with the Internet.

As much as i respect Umberto Eco, i have to say this is a very common mistake
amongst people not acquainted with internet. Truth is, you never knew BEFORE
the internet. What we account as the truth in books is based around the idea
of truthfulness of a particular author. But in reality, and for big period of
times in history, lies have been spread by books wich were thought as very
respected. And as the 20th century showed us, the best way to prevent lies
from spreading, is the free circulation of information.

Any clever kid on the street has the capacity to filter the information coming
from the internet in a very efficient way. And when you know how to filter,
interpret and analyze, i'll go as far as saying, internet is the best source
for truth we ever had. Just pray for it to last ..

~~~
limist
But Eco's perspective is more nuanced than "Internet untrustworthy, books
good" or the like. On the second page of the interview is where he gives a
little gem on how to train a discerning mind, a modern version of classical
rhetoric exercises:

Eco: Yes, in the case of Google, both things do converge. Google makes a list,
but the minute I look at my Google-generated list, it has already changed.
These lists can be dangerous -- not for old people like me, who have acquired
their knowledge in another way, but for young people, for whom Google is a
tragedy. Schools ought to teach the high art of how to be discriminating.

SPIEGEL: Are you saying that teachers should instruct students on the
difference between good and bad? If so, how should they do that?

Eco: Education should return to the way it was in the workshops of the
Renaissance. There, the masters may not necessarily have been able to explain
to their students why a painting was good in theoretical terms, but they did
so in more practical ways. Look, this is what your finger can look like, and
this is what it has to look like. Look, this is a good mixing of colors. The
same approach should be used in school when dealing with the Internet. The
teacher should say: "Choose any old subject, whether it be German history or
the life of ants. Search 25 different Web pages and, by comparing them, try to
figure out which one has good information." If 10 pages describe the same
thing, it can be a sign that the information printed there is correct. But it
can also be a sign that some sites merely copied the others' mistakes.

Notice he seems quite familiar with Google and its limitations. As for his
educational suggestion, it's excellent in teaching a multitude of high-level
skills (research, referencing, comparison, synthesis, re-explanation,
skepticism, etc.) but this level of education needs a teacher willing and
capable of engaging in dialectic or Socratic dialog with a student.

I agree with you that the Internet has made information and knowledge far more
accessible than ever before - for those who know where and how to look for it.
For many/most other people, it can be even worse than previous propaganda
channels of print, radio, or TV. The sheer variety of the Internet guarantees
that if you don't want other perspectives and prefer company that thinks like
you, you can readily limit yourself.

~~~
Raphael_Amiard
>I agree with you that the Internet has made information and knowledge far
more accessible than ever before - for those who know where and how to look
for it. For many/most other people, it can be even worse than previous
propaganda channels of print, radio, or TV. The sheer variety of the Internet
guarantees that if you don't want other perspectives and prefer company that
thinks like you, you can readily limit yourself.

I definately agree with you, but we're talking about a totally different topic
here, the one of self-limitation, or something like that. I know many people
around me that are like that. Also , the best way to hide information on the
internet, is not to try and prevent it to spread, but much more to drown it
into tons of irrelevant content, wich can be a very effective technique, and
as tech-oriented fellows, we see that done all the time. This certainly
nuances my former post.

------
zby
Sometimes the lists that he mention are really sets sometimes it is about
linear order. I don't see how it can be so deep thought when it is not even
precise.

------
NathanKP
This probably explains why "Top Ten" articles are so popular on the internet
these days.

People like getting information fed to them in lists.

~~~
roc
I think lists are simply more conversational.

If I write a thousand word essay on why CITIZEN KANE was an important,
pivotal, but largely unwatchable film - very few people are going to read it
to the end. And the style and the nature of my arguments will select out huge
audiences. Those who remain to link or discuss what I've written will be of a
pretty narrow group.

But if I just post "Top 10 Important Films I Can't Stand to Watch" and include
CITIZEN KANE, it invites any number of conversations at various levels-of-
depth. The potential audience is far, far larger and the territory open to
discussion is vast.

------
coderdude
Did anyone else notice that Eco was bad at answering the guy's questions? When
he asks him about Homer straying from poetry, Eco goes on about something else
entirely.

~~~
gwern
I don't think so. The point was that the list may seem primitive and basic,
but it's a sophisticated linguistic tool; much of poetry is like that.
(Homer's epithets come to mind as seeming both basic - what could be more
basic than just repeating from the same set of adjectives ? - but also is an
important & sophisticated part of his poems.)

(And with Eco, it doesn't matter if he strays. What, is the interviewer more
insightful, interesting, and knowledgeable that we would prefer to hear what
she has to say instead of Eco?)

~~~
coderdude
I'm just saying that since this was an interview it would have been nice if
Eco could have kept it coherent. As for the author, whether he is more
insightful or not, I was interested in a direct answer to that question.

~~~
misuba
That's the job of the interviewer (and his/her editor).

------
gaius
I might go see this at the weekend...

~~~
gaius
The interview is much more interesting than the exhibit itself :-/

