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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
It’s plausible that you can seduce people some way along the path to metarationality by (mis)presenting it as “advanced rationality.” That will probably work best for many people! Especially those who learn best by starting with concrete skills before understanding principles.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Given very limited resources, and very limited knowledge of what might work, I am pursuing an alternative pedagogical approach, of clearly laying out the principles and concepts from the beginning. That may work best for people who (like me) need to get the big picture first.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
The main question for my readers now is probably “what even is this supposed thing ‘metarationality’? does it exist? why should I care about it?” So I see step 1 as pointing out as clearly as possible what it is, which involves pointing out how it’s different from rationality.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
For anyone who holds rationality as a religion, that’s inevitably going to be confrontive, even if I emphasize that metarationality is in no way opposed to rationality, and indeed that neither can operate without the other *at all*.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - 14 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.