@Meaningness Take privilege, an intersectional (stage 5) problem. "I don't see how I have 'white privilege'—my economic class is oppressed!"
-
-
Replying to @joXn
@Meaningness Out into speculative territory: can understanding up two levels be (superficially?) easier than understanding up one level?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
@Meaningness Gnarly stage 3 problems have to do with balancing competing interpersonal claims. That's a *kind* of intersectionality.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
@Meaningness Now really hand-waving: might explain the way some online communities grasp privilege issues yet resolve conflict by expulsion.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@joXn > reasoning capabilities needed to apply them accurately, so stage 5 concepts get used mostly as shibboleths instead.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness I disagree here; reasoning is an orthogonal capability. To argue by analogy to mathematics, take someone adept at algebra …>1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
@Meaningness You can teach them how and why to differentiate polynomials and they will be able to solve minimization problems just fine …>1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
@Meaningness But Taylor Series will be beyond reach until more general calculus, because that's a different level of systemic abstraction …>1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
@Meaningness The concept can be understood and correctly applied, and yet the system it's embedded in still be opaque. The missing nuance …>2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.