BOOKS - Coming sometime
- The Scale Of Things - A visual comparison of the biggest to the smallest in our world.
- The Scale Of Time - A visual comparison of historical timescales.
- How To Be Happy - A visual explanation of happiness.
ABOUT VIZSTUFF - SHORT / LONG / FULL EXPLANATIONS
- Short: 100 words
- Long: 1500 words of "Full" explanation
- Full: 4500 words
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT - VIZSTUFF - SHORT EXPLANATION
PURPOSE/GOAL OF VIZSUFF.COM
The goal of this website is to facilitate better, quicker, and easier comprehension of broad concepts/ideas that are commonly misunderstood by utilizing clear/simple graphics.
- The method of facilitating this is by an emphasis on precise, non-emotive, and minimalist yet contextually thorough graphics as the mode of communication.
- The core premise of this site is that words, due to their repetitive nature and ambiguity, tend to encourage very common, shallow, pattern matching interpretation tendencies to presume, filter, or misinterpret information to align with default preconceptions.
VizStuff.com is authored by Bruce Lemons.
By the same author is a site focused on Photography and Hiking:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT - VIZSTUFF - LONG EXPLANATION
PURPOSE/GOAL OF VIZSTUFF.COM
The goal of this website is to facilitate better, quicker, and easier comprehension of broad concepts/ideas that are commonly misunderstood by utilizing clear/simple graphics.
- The method of facilitating this is by an emphasis on precise, non-emotive, and minimalist yet contextually thorough graphics as the mode of communication.
The core premise of this site is that there are some very common and critical barriers to clear/quick/easy comprehension that might be circumvented/avoided/mitigated/reduced, (making the task of the interpreter easier), with emphasis on the right kind of graphics,
as opposed to the more traditional/common emphasis on words. These barriers are:
- 1. Lack of clarity and precision in presentation/communication of an idea/concept leads to excess/superfluous/extraneous/irrelevant data/information that can hide or confuse meaning.
- - Emotionlessness, precision, clarity, and minimalism might be more easily achieved with graphics than words.
- 2. Some ideas/concepts are inherently visual, and therefore difficult for words to succinctly, precisely, and clearly convey.
- - Large quantities, spatial/geometric qualities including scale/orientation/etc, and relative comparison of these factors are a few examples.
- 3. Some ideas/concepts require a very large number of words to explain, making it difficult for readers/listeners to get a coherent and unified grasp of the whole idea.
- - Graphics can sometimes be better in these cases for conveying these type of ideas such that they can be grasped almost instantaneously as a coherent and unified whole. A graphic geographical map as opposed to a written description is an example of this.
- 4. Words often have multiple meanings,
- - ...sometimes to nuanced degree, sometimes to extreme or even inverted degree,
- - …sometimes due to unplanned societal evolution of meaning, sometimes due to intentional intent to deceive (to sneak a different idea in place of another but give it the same name).
- - - Shallower/simpler modes of thinking are very susceptible to error when dealing with words that have multiple meanings.
- - - - Shallower/simpler modes of thinking often fail to recognize word variability …often conflating two different meanings of the same word, which leads to erroneous understanding of reality, and erroneous conclusions.
- 5. Words, (and other common symbols), due to their repetitive use/familiarity, often carry subjective preconceptions that vary with the particular reader/listener/viewer, facilitating an easy and often unconscious/automated emotional/intuitive response defaulting to preset ideas that can override intended meaning, hindering correct interpretation of ideas/concepts.
- - Reader/listener/viewer over reliance on preconceptions inhibits actual evaluation of new ideas.
- - - Preconceptions are good/practical/efficient/necessary time/energy saving shortcut strategies likely to lead to useful conclusions when utilized for the very great number of non-complex, repetitive situations predominant in daily life.
- - - - Humans default mode of thinking is based in preconceptions/pattern recognition, and comes very naturally, requiring minimal time/energy/effort.
- - - Preconceptions are bad/impractical/inefficient strategies likely to lead to faulty conclusions when utilized for the relatively small number of complex new/unique data/information/situations that are increasingly more common for modern man, who survives and thrives based on creating the new/unique.
- - - - Deep, thorough reanalysis is more effective for these situations, but does not come naturally by default, and requires a large amount of time/energy/effort. The ability to utilize this mode of thinking is what makes humans most unique, and most successful at flourishing.
- - Most non-emotive graphics are less likely to carry preconceptions than even the most non-emotive words. There is a substantial subset of graphics, but rare few words, which are not likely to be emotive/not likely to elicit preconceptions.
- Emotive imagery, particularly images that convey an emotional experience, encourage a different failure. Such images encourage emotional/intuitive response/thinking, and discourage rational analysis. Simple, non-emotive graphics avoid this as well.
- I hypothesize that these interpretation failures are exacerbated by a current trend to shorter/quicker media and a corresponding shorter/shallower attention span, leading to decreased tolerance for and ability to accurately process longer/more complex information/data.
- - This incomplete or shallow focus may lead to skimming or filtering information/data, absorbing only whatever very limited subset of words match preconceived notions, ("pattern matching"), potentially missing and/or misinterpreting key data/information/ideas, sometimes even to the point of interpreting the exact opposite of the information intent.
- - - - More extreme/egregious examples of this are deriving conclusions from headlines, or interpreting, evaluating, or reviewing a book based on reading a few pages.
- - - - - Unfortunately, news media seems to be increasingly shrinking closer to headlines in length/depth, and reading entire books seems to be an increasingly rare endeavor, even by journalists critiquing/reviewing them.
- Caveats:
- - Graphics usually must include words to be effective.
- - Words do not require graphics/visuals to be effective. Words are the most critical, powerful, and primary communication tool, but are not optimal alone in every case. This site is focused on those cases where graphics might be clearer.
- Optimal information graphics need to be in a sweet spot of being precise, non-emotive, and minimalist yet contextually thorough, to successfully circumvent, avoid, mitigate, or reduce these failures.
- - Graphics need to be as simplistic as possible, communicating nothing other than specific intent, while still complex enough to communicate everything necessary/all critically relevant context. This is concision.
- Information/data complexity is increasing as human creations, both physical and societal, get increasingly more complex at an accelerating rate.
- - With more complexity comes more opportunities, more problems, and the need for increasingly more and more complex strategies/solutions.
- - - This dramatic/extreme increase in complexity has occurred primarily in the last few hundred years of humanity's 300,000 years.
- - - - The capabilities that arise via evolutionary development often take long time frames to fully develop. We are still functioning with many capabilities/behaviors that are largely better adapted to pre-modern society.
- - - - - The most critical capability/skill/tool for humans is thinking, which can broadly be separated into 2 thinking modes:
- - - - - - 1. A shallower/simpler mode of thinking is based in emotion/intuition/instinct.
- - - - - - - These methodologies for analyzing, evaluating, and forming conclusions to act on are largely based on "pattern matching", …evaluating data/info/experience to the minimal degree needed to spot/recognize any familiar aspects, and then assuming the rest matches previous data/conclusions. Selectively processing a subset of data, ignoring the rest, and "filling in" based on previous data/conclusions. This is a relatively quick/easy/simple methodology where minimal reevaluation or reanalysis takes place.
- - - - - - - - These thinking modes are extremely efficient, and very effective in a world/environment that changes very little. They are quick, low cost in energy use, and low cost in cognitive effort. Evolution has prioritized these efficient thinking methodologies for almost all creatures over millions of years in a world that has changed extremely slowly, and therefore dominated by consistent/predictable/repetitive scenarios.
- - - - - - - - - These thinking modes remain important/valuable for emotional interaction where the primary goals are connection forming rather than problem solving.
- - - - - - - - - These thinking modes remain important/valuable and effective as a problem-solving methodology appropriate for the many aspects of life that continue to be simplistic and/or repetitive.
- - - - - - - - - These are evolutionarily well established, and still the tools that we default to, both because of their primacy, and because they are relatively low cost in effort/energy.
- - - - - - - - These thinking modes are extremely inefficient and error prone as a problem-solving methodology in the increasingly more complex human created environment that is changing increasingly faster and more dramatically, and therefore, rife with inconsistent/unpredictable/non repetitive scenarios.
- - - - - - - - - Use of emotion/intuition/instinct as a methodology, which is bad for complex issues, should not be confused with inclusion of emotion/intuition/instinct as factors to be considered/included in methodological analysis, which is good/important.
- - - - - - - - - Emotion/intuition/instinct can also be a first step or signal by the simpler, sometimes unconscious, thinking mode calling attention to a need for deeper rational analysis.
- - - - - - 2. A deeper/more complex mode of thinking is rationality.
- - - - - - - Rationality/logic/analytical (critical) thinking are the only methodological tools that are effective for humans to successfully navigate many of the extremely complex, extremely new, and rapidly changing aspects of our modern world.
- - - - - - - - These are the wonderful, powerful, rich, energy/effort intensive, high cost, tools that allow us to effectively deal with the extremely complex, extremely new, modern realities, such as technology, and large population sociopolitical issues.
- - - - - - - - - These are newer, much more fungible, and evolving evolutionary tools that require much more conscious activation, and are high cost in effort/energy.
- - - - - We often default to instinct, emotion, and intuition even in dealing with highly complex, new, modern realities where they are less effective.
- - - - - The fundamental capabilities for rationality, logic, and analytical (critical) thinking are available to all humans, but they require great effort, training, and nurturing, to be optimally activated, unlike instinct, emotion, and intuition.
- - - - - It is critical for us to understand that complex/changing aspects of our world such as science, tech, or sociopolitical issues can only be effectively analyzed with rationality. Utilizing instinct, emotion, or intuition as a method of deriving conclusions regarding these complex and rapidly evolving realms leads to erroneous conclusions.
- The goal of this website is activation of rationality, logic, and analytical (critical) thinking, instead of instinct, emotion, and intuition when dealing with complex ideas/information/problems.
- - The hypothesis and premise of this website is that relatively simplistic graphics can more quickly, clearly, and concisely convey some concepts, while better avoiding the automated emotional/intuitive associations that often ride along with words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT - VIZSTUFF - FULL EXPLANATION
ACCURACY/BIAS
VizStuff attempts to minimize bias with maximal data and minimal framing, but in the end this is a subjective endeavor, influenced by/susceptible to bias.
- Much VizStuff content falls outside of realms where bias typically takes great relevance.
- Where content does touch on more contentious realms, VizStuff attempts to minimize bias, and be transparent/realistic regarding the potential for bias.
- - Key/essential/foundational VizStuff biases are:
- - - Reason/rational analysis is the optimal method to reach conclusions, as opposed to emotion, intuition, or instinct.
- - - Optimal analysis requires consideration of the long term, and full context, including all tradeoffs both positive and negative of all sides of a topic.
- - - Truth and long-term results are more important than short-term compassion, feeling good, harmony, and appearing good/tolerant/compassionate.
- - - Truths do exist. Some ideas are better than others. Some people are better than others. No humans are morally any better/worse than others based on inherent physical or genetic characteristics. Humans can be better/worse based on their individual ideas or actions.
- - - Problems rarely have perfect solutions. Optimal solutions are almost always a choice between tradeoffs. Perfect solutions are almost always wishful fantasies based in avoidance of full context. Wishes are not sufficient to improve reality.
- - - Individual freedom from physical force (and threat of physical force), and correspondingly, the right of individuals to do anything that does not violate others’ freedom from force, should be the primary focus of society.
- - - - Force is one individual or group taking from another. Force is not one individual or group refusing to give to another.
- - - - Inherent to the concept of the right to freedom from force is the right to use force in defense.
- - - - Human interaction should be voluntary. Positive human interaction is critical/foundational to individual success/happiness/flourishing.
- - - - Supporting individual freedom requires there be no application of force aimed at group (collective) outcomes. Such application inherently violates individual freedom.
- - - - - The best long-term group (collective) outcomes are a result of supporting individual freedom.
- - - - Individual freedom is required for maximum creativity, creativity combined with positive/voluntary human interaction being fundamental to long term individual human happiness/flourishing, which in turn is required for maximum collective flourishing.
- - - - The uniquely human cross generational communication capabilities, if allowed to function freely along with individual freedoms otherwise, result in advancing individual and collective long term flourishing via successive buildup of innovations.
- All sources have bias. (Any content labeled by its creator as "Unbiased", (as news media often self refers), is highlighting itself as deficient in either judgement, or honesty.)
- - Any presentation of data/information is a subjective/biased selection/subset/filtering.
- - Any presentation of data/information is a subjective/biased framing/organization/contextualization.
- - - This does not preclude the appropriate/positive goal of minimizing bias/subjectivity.
- - - - Information/data presentation can minimize bias/subjectivity/opinion, and maximize objectivity/factualness by minimizing data filtering, and framing.
OPINION/FACT SLIDER SCALE
The "Opinion" / "Fact" sliding scale for each topic/image is a very rough and simplistic attempt to flag degree of certainty.
- The scale can also represent "speculation/hypothesis/theory/fact", or "analysis/data" ranges.
- The "Opinion" / "Fact" sliding scale for each topic/image are (of course) a subjective evaluation, limited by many factors.
- - The slider is an attempt to capture/communicate these factors that affect the confidence level of the image data:
- - - The expertise, comprehension, and quantity/depth of research by the VizStuff content creator can have varying degrees, more prominently relevant the more complex the topic.
- - - - The poorer any of these aspects when combined with high complexity, the farther from "Fact" the slider is positioned.
- - - Supporting data quality can vary greatly.
- - - - The more limited relevant data is in quantity, consistency, reproducibility, or other qualitative aspects, the farther from "Fact" the slider is positioned.
- - - - The more complex the topic, the higher the standard for quality that goes into evaluation.
- - - The greater a topic's complexity/nuance/contextual factors, the farther from "Fact" the slider is positioned.
- - The scales are self-referential. This is a content creator evaluating the truth of my own content …the worst possible/most biased evaluator.
- - For these reasons, these scales are inherently of very limited value/trustworthiness, but can be used as a starting point for evaluation.
- This is all to suggest that truth/facts can be difficult to determine/know precisely/accurately.
- - However, truth/facts DO exist as objective realities.
- - - We can never be absolutely sure we have correctly discovered a particular objective truth/fact of reality,
- - - - but living successfully requires acting based on conclusions, so it is important to evaluate degree of confidence for any conclusion, and act on them accordingly.
- - - - - There are many conclusions with enough support to justify confidence to such a high degree that for all practical purposes, it is rational/appropriate/necessary to treat them as truth/fact (barring new conflicting data).
- - - - - - Confidence levels consider the precision (lack of ambiguity), and the degree of universality (lack of exceptions).
- - - Truth/facts are NOT as a rule unknowable, but they can be unknown, and all have the potential to be knowable.
- - - Truth/facts are NOT different for different people, but people, and their experiences are different.
- There are many subjective and contradictory determinations of what is true/factual, but among contradictory conclusions, only one can be true/factual.
- - There are many subjective determinations of what is true/factual that seem contradictory, but are not. In these cases, multiple can be true/factual.
- Truths/facts can exist, but be undiscovered/unknown.
PURPOSE/GOAL OF VIZSUFF.COM
The goal of this website is to facilitate better, quicker, and easier comprehension of broad concepts/ideas that are commonly misunderstood by utilizing clear/simple graphics.
- The method of facilitating this is by an emphasis on precise, non-emotive, and minimalist yet contextually thorough graphics as the mode of communication.
- The ideas and hypotheses underlying this website are one individual's current opinion, and therefore very possibly wrong in whole, and almost surely wrong in part ... (of course).
- - I will not preface every statement with, "This is my opinion, and I could very well be wrong", but doing so would be accurate.
- - - In a more rational climate, such clarification would not be necessary, but given the current escalating confusion in journalism between facts and opinion, such clarification seems appropriate.
- Clear communication of ideas/info and accurate comprehension of those ideas/info are both important, and both common points of failure
- - Comprehension of concepts/ideas is a critically important step in logical/rational thinking. Rational thinking is the human animal's uniquely primary tool for survival, and the key to living a successful/flourishing life, individually, and communally.
- - - Life is the process of acquiring information/data, analyzing/evaluating that data, and acting based on those conclusions.
- - - - This can be broadly split into 3 parts:
- - - - - A. Acquisition of Information/data/input - Types:
- - - - - - 1. Common/typical day to day sensory data - Experiential - Repetitive - Relatively simplistic.
- - - - - - 2. Uncommon/atypical unique/rare/unusual event data - Experiential - Not repetitive - More complex.
- - - - - - 3. Communicated data - Shared by other humans - Writing, speech, visuals - Passing forward through generations allows accumulative knowledge growth - Relatively unique to humans - Key mode of info sourcing facilitating uniquely human success/flourishing.
- - - - - - - This type of data is generally the most complex. That complexity, and corresponding changes/additions/reevaluations/reinterpretations generally leaves much of communicated data permanently in the realm of "new".
- - - - - B. Processing - Steps/stages - Each step based on previous:
- - - - - - 1. Gathering/sorting/filtering data - Selecting relevant data, enough relevant data, and maintaining context.
- - - - - - 2. Interpreting data - Comprehension - At this stage information is acquired and understood as presented. The logical validity or truthfulness of that information is not yet evaluated. Some organizing/sorting/filtering/ordering of the data may be necessary for coherency.
- - - - - - 3. Evaluating data - Analysis - At this stage information is further organized, then evaluated/analyzed. Ideas, concepts, or arguments are evaluated for logical validity (an argument's structural soundness) and truthfulness (the accuracy of individual data).
- - - - - - - Critical to this process is the separation of complex combinations of information and ideas down to small discrete elements to be analyzed and understood individually, before again recombining them to consider/evaluate all the elements together as a whole.
- - - - - - 4. Deriving conclusions .
- - - - - - 5. Decisions/strategies/plans/goals .
- - - - - C. Actions/behaviors/execution - Based on B-5.
- - - - - - Individual or societal level - Non action is an action.
- - - - These 3 parts (A,B,C) are not always distinctly/clearly separated and/or ordered. They may be mixed, and/or iterative, and/or simultaneous.
- - - - These 5 processing stages are usually not distinctly/clearly separated and/or ordered. They may be mixed, and/or iterative, and/or simultaneous. One example is that it is typical to interpret and evaluate simultaneously.
- - - - - - The line between mentally organizing information for interpretation, and organizing information for analysis is not clear cut.
- - - - These parts or stages may be intentional, and therefore an exercise of rationality. These parts or stages may be unintentional, and therefore subconscious. These parts or stages may be skipped entirely, resulting in random results. Combinations of these are common.
- - - - This site is focused on Part A "Information" Type 3 "Communication" and Part B "Processing" Stage 2 "Interpretation".
- - - - - These involve a communicator of information = a writer/speaker/artist, and an interpreter of information = a reader/listener/viewer.
- - - - This site is NOT focused on Part B "Processing" Stage 3 "Evaluation/Analysis".
- - - - - Graphics can encourage better evaluation/analysis by providing clearer information, but cannot entirely prevent poor final analysis/evaluation of that information.
- - - - - - Graphics can improve information clarity.
- - - - - - Graphics can aid, but not insure that people think rationally.
- - - - - Interpretation and evaluation/analysis can overlap. The line between them is not clear cut. One example is that there may not be a clear distinction between mentally organizing information for comprehension, and mentally organizing information for evaluation.
- - - - - There is a very foundational aspect of Evaluation/analysis integral to, and necessary/required for successful interpretation.
- - - - - - A basic foundational understanding of, appreciation for, and adherence to, logic, objective reality, and objective truth is necessary/required for successful interpretation.
- - - - - - - Lack of understanding of basic logic can prevent not only successful evaluation/analysis, but can prevent successful interpretation as well.
- - - - - - - A basic understanding of logic and objective truth is necessary in the interpretation process of filtering information for relevance. Relevant information is likely to be ignored/excluded by a person lacking a basic understanding of logic.
- - - - - - - - This foundational methodological failure is unlikely to be overcome by any strategy of communication/by the communicator.
- - - - - - - - This failure is best overcome by education of the interpreter/reader/listener/viewer in critical thinking.
- - - - - - - - - Critical thinking is not commonly taught in our educational systems, and a lack of any basic understanding of, and adherence to, logic, objective reality, and objective truth is extremely common today.
- - - - - - - - - "Critical thinking" is a commonly misapplied and misunderstood term. The term is commonly applied to thinking methodologies lacking adherence to, logic, objective reality, and objective truth that critical thinking requires.
- - - - A full explanation of evaluation/analysis, specifically the methodologies and failures of critical thinking, is beyond the scope of this overview.
The core premise of this site is that there are some very common and critical barriers to clear/quick/easy comprehension that might be circumvented/avoided/mitigated/reduced, (making the task of the interpreter easier), with emphasis on the right kind of graphics,
as opposed to the more traditional/common emphasis on words. These barriers are:
- 1. Lack of clarity and precision in presentation/communication of an idea/concept leads to excess/superfluous/extraneous/irrelevant data/information that can hide or confuse meaning.
- - Emotionlessness, precision, clarity, and minimalism might be more easily achieved with graphics than words.
- 2. Some ideas/concepts are inherently visual, and therefore difficult for words to succinctly, precisely, and clearly convey.
- - Large quantities, spatial/geometric qualities including scale/orientation/etc, and relative comparison of these factors are a few examples.
- 3. Some ideas/concepts require a very large number of words to explain, making it difficult for readers/listeners to get a coherent and unified grasp of the whole idea.
- - Graphics can sometimes be better in these cases for conveying these type of ideas such that they can be grasped almost instantaneously as a coherent and unified whole. A graphic geographical map as opposed to a written description is an example of this.
- 4. Words often have multiple meanings,
- - ...sometimes to nuanced degree, sometimes to extreme or even inverted degree,
- - …sometimes due to unplanned societal evolution of meaning, sometimes due to intentional intent to deceive (to sneak a different idea in place of another but give it the same name).
- - - Shallower/simpler modes of thinking are very susceptible to error when dealing with words that have multiple meanings.
- - - - Shallower/simpler modes of thinking often fail to recognize word variability …often conflating two different meanings of the same word, which leads to erroneous understanding of reality, and erroneous conclusions.
- 5. Words, (and other common symbols), due to their repetitive use/familiarity, often carry subjective preconceptions that vary with the particular reader/listener/viewer, facilitating an easy and often unconscious/automated emotional/intuitive response defaulting to preset ideas that can override intended meaning, hindering correct interpretation of ideas/concepts.
- - Reader/listener/viewer over reliance on preconceptions inhibits actual evaluation of new ideas.
- - - Preconceptions are good/practical/efficient/necessary time/energy saving shortcut strategies likely to lead to useful conclusions when utilized for the very great number of non-complex, repetitive situations predominant in daily life.
- - - - Humans default mode of thinking is based in preconceptions/pattern recognition, and comes very naturally, requiring minimal time/energy/effort.
- - - Preconceptions are bad/impractical/inefficient strategies likely to lead to faulty conclusions when utilized for the relatively small number of complex new/unique data/information/situations that are increasingly more common for modern man, who survives and thrives based on creating the new/unique.
- - - - Deep, thorough reanalysis is more effective for these situations, but does not come naturally by default, and requires a large amount of time/energy/effort. The ability to utilize this mode of thinking is what makes humans most unique, and most successful at flourishing.
- - Most non-emotive graphics are less likely to carry preconceptions than even the most non-emotive words. There is a substantial subset of graphics, but rare few words, which are not likely to be emotive/not likely to elicit preconceptions.
- Emotive imagery, particularly images that convey an emotional experience, encourage a different failure. Such images encourage emotional/intuitive response/thinking, and discourage rational analysis. Simple, non-emotive graphics avoid this as well.
- I hypothesize that these interpretation failures are exacerbated by a current trend to shorter/quicker media and a corresponding shorter/shallower attention span, leading to decreased tolerance for and ability to accurately process longer/more complex information/data.
- - This incomplete or shallow focus may lead to skimming or filtering information/data, absorbing only whatever very limited subset of words match preconceived notions, ("pattern matching"), potentially missing and/or misinterpreting key data/information/ideas, sometimes even to the point of interpreting the exact opposite of the information intent.
- - - - More extreme/egregious examples of this are deriving conclusions from headlines, or interpreting, evaluating, or reviewing a book based on reading a few pages.
- - - - - Unfortunately, news media seems to be increasingly shrinking closer to headlines in length/depth, and reading entire books seems to be an increasingly rare endeavor, even by journalists critiquing/reviewing them.
- Caveats:
- - Graphics usually must include words to be effective.
- - Words do not require graphics/visuals to be effective. Words are the most critical, powerful, and primary communication tool, but are not optimal alone in every case. This site is focused on those cases where graphics might be clearer.
- Optimal information graphics need to be in a sweet spot of being precise, non-emotive, and minimalist yet contextually thorough, to successfully circumvent, avoid, mitigate, or reduce these failures.
- - Graphics need to be as simplistic as possible, communicating nothing other than specific intent, while still complex enough to communicate everything necessary/all critically relevant context. This is concision.
- - - Every unnecessary added detail, shading, nuance, color, or complexity of any sort,
- - - - increases the likelihood of eliciting familiar preconceptions,
- - - - and adds potential distraction/confusion from the intended communication.
- - - - - Black/white suffices/is optimal unless color is needed for categorization/separation. Even color elicits emotion. As an example, red typically has negative connotations, and green positive.
- - - - - A line drawing suffices/is more optimal than a detailed sketch.
- - - - - A line drawing suffices/is more optimal than a photo with details, environment, mood, lighting, or people behaving in specific ways.
- - - - Minimalism to avoid confusing complexity, and thoroughness to encompass/include the most relevant context, are diametric. Increasing minimalism decreases thoroughness, and vice versa. The goal is an optimized balance.
- - Graphics need to be emotionally vacuous, eliciting no emotional reaction.
- - - A colorless stick figure elicits few preconceptions. A big bellied, pin striped suit clad man smoking a cigar is a symbol, eliciting many preconceptions. Drawings or photos of people experiencing physiological or emotional extremes elicit many preconceptions.
- - - Emotional reactions, interpretations, feelings, perceptions are all extremely and critically important information. Emotional information is, and should be, considered in many of our most important decisions/conclusions.
- - - Emotional information should never be mixed with non-emotional information for analysis if optimal conclusions are the goal.
- - - - Emotion can override facts. Emotional and non-emotional information should always be considered separately, and only after clarifying which is which, should they be considered together for overall conclusions.
- - - Emotion should be an important input, but should never be a method of analysis if optimal conclusions are the goal.
- - - - Emotion as a start and end point, method of analysis, or over riding emphasis may be appropriate in cases where optimal conclusions/objective solutions are not the goal.
- - - - - Sharing of emotion in close relationships is an example of this, where commiseration, emotional empathy, and social connectivity/bonding is the goal.
- - - - - - Emotional reactions, interpretations, feelings, and perceptions are not information this site will or could adequately or appropriately address, but they are equally or more important to consider, evaluate, value, and understand than non-emotional realms.
- - - - - - - Fully and properly doing so does require rational analysis of emotions.
- Information/data complexity is increasing as human creations, both physical and societal, get increasingly more complex at an accelerating rate.
- - With more complexity comes more opportunities, more problems, and the need for increasingly more and more complex strategies/solutions.
- - - This dramatic/extreme increase in complexity has occurred primarily in the last few hundred years of humanity's 300,000 years.
- - - - The capabilities that arise via evolutionary development often take long time frames to fully develop. We are still functioning with many capabilities/behaviors that are largely better adapted to pre-modern society.
- - - - - The most critical capability/skill/tool for humans is thinking, which can broadly be separated into 2 thinking modes:
- - - - - - 1. A shallower/simpler mode of thinking is based in emotion/intuition/instinct.
- - - - - - - These methodologies for analyzing, evaluating, and forming conclusions to act on are largely based on "pattern matching", …evaluating data/info/experience to the minimal degree needed to spot/recognize any familiar aspects, and then assuming the rest matches previous data/conclusions. Selectively processing a subset of data, ignoring the rest, and "filling in" based on previous data/conclusions. This is a relatively quick/easy/simple methodology where minimal reevaluation or reanalysis takes place.
- - - - - - - - These thinking modes are extremely efficient, and very effective in a world/environment that changes very little. They are quick, low cost in energy use, and low cost in cognitive effort. Evolution has prioritized these efficient thinking methodologies for almost all creatures over millions of years in a world that has changed extremely slowly, and therefore dominated by consistent/predictable/repetitive scenarios.
- - - - - - - - - These thinking modes remain important/valuable for emotional interaction where the primary goals are connection forming rather than problem solving.
- - - - - - - - - These thinking modes remain important/valuable and effective as a problem-solving methodology appropriate for the many aspects of life that continue to be simplistic and/or repetitive.
- - - - - - - - - These are evolutionarily well established, and still the tools that we default to, both because of their primacy, and because they are relatively low cost in effort/energy.
- - - - - - - - These thinking modes are extremely inefficient and error prone as a problem-solving methodology in the increasingly more complex human created environment that is changing increasingly faster and more dramatically, and therefore, rife with inconsistent/unpredictable/non repetitive scenarios.
- - - - - - - - - Use of emotion/intuition/instinct as a methodology, which is bad for complex issues, should not be confused with inclusion of emotion/intuition/instinct as factors to be considered/included in methodological analysis, which is good/important.
- - - - - - - - - Emotion/intuition/instinct can also be a first step or signal by the simpler, sometimes unconscious, thinking mode calling attention to a need for deeper rational analysis.
- - - - - - 2. A deeper/more complex mode of thinking is rationality.
- - - - - - - Rationality/logic/analytical (critical) thinking are the only methodological tools that are effective for humans to successfully navigate many of the extremely complex, extremely new, and rapidly changing aspects of our modern world.
- - - - - - - - These are the wonderful, powerful, rich, energy/effort intensive, high cost, tools that allow us to effectively deal with the extremely complex, extremely new, modern realities, such as technology, and large population sociopolitical issues.
- - - - - - - - - These are newer, much more fungible, and evolving evolutionary tools that require much more conscious activation, and are high cost in effort/energy.
- - - - - We often default to instinct, emotion, and intuition even in dealing with highly complex, new, modern realities where they are less effective.
- - - - - The fundamental capabilities for rationality, logic, and analytical (critical) thinking are available to all humans, but they require great effort, training, and nurturing, to be optimally activated, unlike instinct, emotion, and intuition.
- - - - - It is critical for us to understand that complex/changing aspects of our world such as science, tech, or sociopolitical issues can only be effectively analyzed with rationality. Utilizing instinct, emotion, or intuition as a method of deriving conclusions regarding these complex and rapidly evolving realms leads to erroneous conclusions.
- The goal of this website is activation of rationality, logic, and analytical (critical) thinking, instead of instinct, emotion, and intuition when dealing with complex ideas/information/problems.
- - The hypothesis and premise of this website is that relatively simplistic graphics can more quickly, clearly, and concisely convey some concepts, while better avoiding the automated emotional/intuitive associations that often ride along with words.
- Some of the ways that this site might fail in maximizing comprehension stand out.
- - 1. Some viewers may not have the mental facility for interpreting concepts represented as graphic abstractions. An example of this might be people who have difficulty reading maps.
- - 2. My hypothesis is that emotive and/or narrative communication, as a first or only exposure to ideas/concepts, are poor foundations counterproductive to good thinking. I could be wrong in disagreeing with the common idea that traditionally flowing emotive and/or narrative and/or conversational communication, (traditionally good writing), is entirely effective for establishing rational foundations, and therefore the best path to reaching good conclusions.
- - 3. Failure of execution. Lack of clarity, lack of coherency, incorrect data.
- - 4. Graphics may inherently take too much effort to interpret. Though the burden on the interpreter is reduced by minimizing some potential interpretation failures, the burden is increased in that some minimal level of effort/analysis is required. If the information is not compelling enough to encourage the effort required to interpret it, the communication has failed.
- This site aims to improve comprehension of information.
- - This primary "Visuals" focus of this site is not aimed at significantly improving evaluation/analysis of information. That is an even more challenging/complex task addressed in small ways in the "Words" part of this site.
ABOUT THE TITLE PAGE IMAGE
The title page image is an emotive/evocative image, …not a VizStuff style graphic aimed at clear/concise/minimalist non-emotive information dissemination.
- The goal/purpose of the title page image is to convey the site's premise and purpose in an attention grabbing/emotive/evocative/aesthetically interesting way. Clarity/precision/minimalism is sacrificed to some degree.
- - The method of communication of the title image is therefore via the use of more detailed/ornamental/complex/ambiguous/emotive/colorful graphics.
- - - This does mean that the title image is more open to misinterpretations.
- - - This is an exception/diametrically opposed to the rest of the site content.
- The goal/purpose of the rest of the site content is to convey information with as much clarity/precision/minimalism as possible. Emotional appeal/aesthetics are sacrificed to great degree.
- The specific locations of the brain highlighted in the title image are for dramatic effect only, not representative of actual brain function geography.
The title image is intended to convey that graphics can facilitate deeper thinking/processing and more accurate/precise interpretation than words in some cases where preconceptions and/or ambiguities are likely.
- Words, in general, are more flexible, capable, and powerful communication tools, but often require greater reader/listener focused effort, and interpretive skills, of which preconception filtering, and ambiguity awareness are key.
- - Readers/listeners interpretive skills are very commonly poor, and people are often not inclined to expend great effort towards deep, accurate, or thorough interpretation.
- - Graphics usually must include words to be effective in communicating complex ideas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------