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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
If rationalism is something like “rationality is the pinnacle of understanding and all you need,” then rationalism has to be explicitly opposed in order to make metarationality visible.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Your metarationalism seems to be almost indistinguishable from postmodernism though, because your main argument against rationalism appears to be not rational, but nebulous.
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.