My garden of fragments and open questions.
Tacit knowledge is just unextracted record.
Most of what we call “intuition” is a record no one has yet done the work to write down. If that’s true, the ceiling on what a person — or a field — can know is set by extraction, not by talent.
When does showing your workings build trust — and when does it just perform rigor?
I keep wanting to show the whole process. But there’s a version of that which is honesty and a version which is theater. I don’t yet know how to tell them apart from the inside.
AI didn’t create the education crisis. It made it legible.
Three hundred writing-center sessions taught me the gap between task-compliance and understanding predates the models. The tools didn’t open the gap; they just switched on the light.
Cheap motivation doesn’t scale.
True of me and mathematics. Wondering how far it generalizes — to teams, to institutions, to whole fields running on the wrong kind of fuel.
Who does the institution let speak — and who does it merely record?
The Anita Hill paper was one instance. The pattern is everywhere: credibility is allocated long before anyone opens their mouth.
A projection you can’t be wrong about is not a projection.
If a scouting call has no condition under which it fails, it’s a vibe with a confidence interval. The whole point is to be falsifiable — and then to check.
Reality always exceeds its record.
The axiom under all of it. Everything I build is one move: close some of the distance between the world and what we’ve written down about it.