Going from a child to an adult doesn't feel like renouncing the understanding of the world that you had as a child, even if much of your old understanding was wrong. It just feels like your understanding gradually getting better.
-
-
Replying to @xuenay @Meaningness
(this is why I also dislike the whole rationality vs. meta-rationality terminology: it's creating an artificial distinction and a tribal narrative, when IMO there's just a continuous refinement and increasing sophistication of the art of rationality)
4 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @xuenay @Meaningness
Got to go to work, but... I like the river analogy here: https://vividness.live/2015/10/12/developing-ethical-social-and-cognitive-competence/#comment-7352 … Overall continuous process but in sections the way forward is counterintuitive so people pile up. A sharp distinction doesn't make sense to me either, but something like this does.pic.twitter.com/xS7TtuVWlA
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @drossbucket @xuenay
Yes, in some ways the “stages” presentation is misleading, and I seriously considered dropping it in the Cofounders piece. I emphasized gradualness there.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
But, there IS a sharp bend in the river. The vector from 4 to 5 is points in a completely different direction from the vector from 3 to 4 (and both of those are reasonably straight once you are heading in the right direction).
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I think some have commented that 4 comes much easier and more natural than 3 for some people (me included), which I also think complicates things. Any thoughts on that?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Dispositional differences? Innate differences in cognition? Different life experiences? Stanovich's decoupling stuff seems highly relevant. Does that literature talk about factors that influence whether people decouple?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No I mean in the context of the stages model (I can make sense of it generally).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
(Not sure I’m understanding your question, but:) The stages model is a claim of an invariant sequence: you can’t do n+1 until you’ve done n. It doesn’t (in itself) address individual differences wrt difficulty of stages.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
No what I mean is that I, and apparently many others, don't exactly have the experience of mastering 3 and then going towards 4. 3 seems pretty alien to me, and 2-4 feels more true. That suggests a problem with the model or that I'm not understanding it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
It’s possible to misunderstand 3 as “social skills”; one of the points of The Cofounders was that 4 and 5 are *also* about social skills, potentially at much more sophisticated levels.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @everytstudies and
You don’t have to master social skills to be at 3. The criterion is that you can (and frequently do) subordinate your immediate personal desires to the maintenance of a relationship. You are often willing to go to the restaurant your friends chose instead of the one you’d prefer.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes - 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.