Conversation

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

Quote Tweet

· Jul 25, 2016

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

Jonah

@Zalambar

Jul 25, 2016

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

Andy Matuschak

@andy_matuschak

Jul 25, 2016

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

Jonah

@Zalambar

Jul 25, 2016

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

Andy Matuschak

@andy_matuschak

Jul 25, 2016

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

Jonah

@Zalambar

Jul 25, 2016

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

Andy Matuschak

@andy_matuschak

Jul 25, 2016

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

Jonah

@Zalambar

Jul 25, 2016

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

Andy Matuschak

@andy_matuschak

Replying to

@Zalambar

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

8:10 PM · Jul 25, 2016Twitter for iPhone

Replying to

and

I wrote notes condensing each chapter of Evolving Self, text most relevant to why 5>4>3: idletwilight.wordpress.com

Replying to

and

Still studying too, but my take is 5&4&3 > 4&3. They're complements, like mediums (video&text > just video)

Andy Matuschak

@andy_matuschak

Jul 27, 2016

I don’t think that makes sense. 5 is itself defined as the stance that multiple systems must be combined fluidly.

Show replies