Conversation

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.

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

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

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

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

Must or can? There's a dependence leading up to 5, but changing gears downward seems helpful, e.g. to teach others

It’s defined as “must,” yes. Subjunctively adopting stances for teaching is covered by the fluidity of 5.

Ah, in which case I see the implied > comparison. Thanks. Any other suggested readings for a 4->5 transition?

Replying to

and

Nope, I’m pretty clueless here. Still reading through Meaningness—plenty there.