The category problem is something I’ve struggled with personally. Categorization comes easily to some people. For me, it does not.

Love this stuff. Like many fields, they use an obtuse language that belongs only to its field but when you look at the graphics and realize a hyperplane is what? A line. It’s a line. Vector? Best angle to draw the line.

The category problem is something I’ve struggled with personally. Categorization comes easily to some people. For me, it does not. For me it’s classifying information. Do I do so by date? Well, that works very well but then outside of a location in time, it doesn’t say much else. Geographical classification works well also: You put something back where you found it so that you’ll find it again.

But then, you categories beyond that. They’re arbitrary things, often culturally defined but they can be defined in many ways.

Whenever I try to put things in categories I end up with a “yeah but…” and it’s worse when I use someone else’s system that doesn’t work how I think: I can’t find things after that.

So, what are my “categories”?

So for me, learning how machines are being taught to categorize helps _me_ learn to categorize better.

In that sense, I’m somewhat envious of ppl on the alt.right: They can categorize EVERYTHING into stereotypical forms that works well for them. They have it easy. A goes with A. B goes with B. Life’s simpler for them.

So, I’m going the complex route towards the simple. As someone once said, “I tend to look for a forest when a toothpick will do”. But it helps me as I’m slow to certainty as I hate being wrong.

===

I’m jealous of them. They have it easier. I don’t mind PROPER binary classifications… but finding _proper_ binary classifications is no easy feat when you’re trying to be correct from all contexts.

===

Indeed. I’m just jealous. Black is black. White is white. They have no shades or awkwardness. But, I can’t be like that. Never was. I see uniqueness, often too much so. It can be overwhelming at times but I manage. I don’t think they’re BAD for being that way: it’s just how they are, although the consequences for being that way -can- be less than effective for a proper functioning pluralistic society.. which might be why they want to get rid of a pluralistic society and have a one-note piano monotonal society instead.

===

The simplest binary is “us/them”. But I guess that’s where the line becomes a hyperplane: There are many many dimensions to the line between us/them and there are weights.

Your gay example is a good one: there are cases where gay=ok for them, hence a multidimensional hyperplane for categorization rather than lines.

===

very much so. It’s one of the reasons why I’ll spent so much time with an individual in these groups who start off with hardline positions. With time and effort, chipping away at the practiced rhetoric, there’s a human underneath it all. It’s worth discovering. [not always but usually].

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


four + = 6

Leave a Reply