@carolecadwalla The fact that Cummings felt compelled to refer to you in this job ad is actually hugely relevant. He understands the systemic level very well, but fails at understanding how others make sense of the systemic, and why that is important.
@carolecadwalla He also fails to understand there is circularity in the particular context of elections (i.e. process of how the average p makes sense of what's best, given tons of influence). That circularity gives more legitimacy to your stories than his calculations as a way to build meaning
@carolecadwalla His job ad is largely obsessed with "causation" and "counterfactuals", which is a very narrow view of what "meaning" is. Meaning here are explanations that others can relate to, in the sense that they can come up with their own plan of how to relate to it.
@carolecadwalla "Take back control" was exactly this: Cummings crafting a message without meaning that polled well. It polled well because the targets would ascribe their own meaning to it.
@carolecadwalla (covfefe/Trump is the extreme version: noise has no meaning, whoever who tries to ascribe meaning to it will fail and de facto put themselves in a position of weakness)
@carolecadwalla If you are a civil servant, it might be fine to be technocratic and not concerned with this meaning. The danger is that Cummings is aware of his blindspot/weakness, and wants to turn it into an opportunity.
@carolecadwalla That's why he is looking for misfits. His own Surkov could help him build the "alternative meanings" that polls/confuses well.
