In particular, I try to show that you can derive the reasons for also being green, from the basic assumptions in orange's framework. Thus making green actually an extension of orange, which the logic of orange compels oranges to adopt.
-
-
This is in part derived from conflict resolution practices - to reduce hostility, emphasize similarities and de-emphasize dissimilarities between people. And I think that if people can be convinced that these are really the same, then they can study orange and green in parallel.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Since they are seen as complimentary aspects of the same art, rather than two distinct things. Ideally if this new narrative would take hold, then everyone would end up yellow by default, since there was no reason to have loyalty to just one of them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But this makes me averse of approaches where yellow is explicitly contrasted with orange and made to be a totally different thing. I think that's again emphasizing differences and making them more salient, which feels like the opposite of what I think would be a good strategy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That said, it's plausible that your strategy is better than mine; it could be that the difference is already so salient in people's minds, that you *have* to address it explicitly in those terms, and that my approach is doomed.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @xuenay
You raise excellent points here, and I’m sympathetic to the approach you are taking. I certainly agree that minimizing conflict is worthwhile. On other points, the best way forward is not clear to me. Let me point out some possible objections and alternatives…
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
I’m not a spiral dynamics expert, and don’t really buy the framework, but my understanding is that according to it green and orange actually do contradict. Yellow is not just combining them, or accepting both; you can’t do that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
Yellow “transcends and includes” both orange and green. The “transcends” means a qualitative transformation based on explicitly understanding the internal logic of the others, seeing both their strengths and failure modes, and constructing something different from both.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
In Kegan’s framework, the “holding environment” has to both push you out of your current stage and draw you into the next. He uses the words “challenge” and “contradict” for the pushing. The environment has to say “no, this is not adequate any more,” which isn’t easy to hear.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
At the social, cultural, and historical level, rationality is not adequate anymore. It has not been adequate for a century, and has conclusively failed. This is an urgent crisis imo.https://meaningness.com/systems-crisis-breakdown …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Pedagogically, how can we most effectively & efficiently train people in metarationality? No one yet knows. Your suggestion of training it along with rationality is attractive and plausible.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
In the Bongard post, and other places, I’ve emphasized “this is something you are already doing without noticing; the next step is to see clearly what this thing is, and then you can start to learn to do it better.”
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
I would love to reform the undergraduate curriculum to do that. This seems unrealistic in the short term, however. In the current world, the possibility of metarationality only comes into view once you have become proficient in rationality and then seen its limitations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 18 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.