Conversation

👏 for this clever microworld on fluid systematicity. Was skeptical, then the essay addressed exactly my objections.

Quote Tweet

‽ “A first lesson in meta-rationality”: in a STEM curriculum for cognitive 4→5 transition. meaningness.com/metablog/bonga

extremely skeptical of this model when it seems to exist to justify STEM primacy as path to salvation.

I don’t think it does; I think it observes that people often reach rationality through STEM, expresses a longing for other paths.

I think that there’s a lots of implicit bias and citation needed on that observation.

The observation that people often reach rationality through STEM? Does the discussion actually rest on that in any important way?

as examples of 3➡️4➡️5 advancement, yes. Jumps from stages as classification to stages as progression.

Replying to

Oh, I think I see: you’re saying a citation is needed on e.g. 4 being “better” than 3?

Replying to

yes, either “better” or naturally follows from, also that STEM has any better odds of “advancing”

Agree that entire argument rests on 5>4>3. Kegan himself is your citation there. I haven't yet studied that proposition thoroughly

Show replies