2 ms·

Quote from the link: Kegan describes three stages of adult development (numbered 3, 4, and 5). We could call them pre-rational, rational, and meta-rational. The

by abss 5y ago

Quote from the link: Kegan describes three stages of adult development (numbered 3, 4, and 5). We could call them pre-rational, rational, and meta-rational. These stages are distinctive, internally consistent, relatively-well-functioning modes for organizing one’s thinking, one’s self, and one’s relationships. They might be described as “islands of psychological stability.” To progress from one island to the next, you must cross a heaving sea of psychological confusion, in which the previous mode no longer seems functional, but you cannot yet operate in the next mode reliably. These stage transitions are emotionally and cognitively difficult, and typically take several years, during which one may think, feel, and act inconsistently. These ideas are not discussed enough, do you know any schools that teach it and give people a hope to achive meta-dationality? It is there a risk of people faking meta-rationality?

alboaie 5y ago
Traditionally, the bridge between stage 4 and 5 was reserved for "spiritual" seekers. And this is still a path to folow. While stage 4 people could consider spirituality a level 3 activity, hostory shows enough level 5 people that bridged over "duality" for example and that used "wisdom" as a proxy for metarationality. Having stronger "rationality based results" and call these result as "science results" makes the brdiging both easier and harder. It is easier because you get a stronger indicaton (lets say data) that rationality is an ilusion. However, you can also get lost in details: " became unable to see the forest because of the trees" ;)
katmannthree 5y ago
Can it even be taught directly? All of the information needed to transition through the various stages is readily out there, the strength of intellectual curiosity necessary to push through the less than comfortable transitions is something that people seem to either have or not. > It is there a risk of people faking meta-rationality? I think that intentionally faking a level of psychological development is only possible in the opposite direction.
PoignardAzur 5y ago
In my personal experience (take it with a grain of salt), the thing with "rationality" is, if you're looking for it, you'll find it, schools or not. People want to learn about the world around them, STEM or not. What stops that learning from happening is mostly internal: a fear of looking dumb, a fear of being proven wrong before peers, etc. If we can teach people to be humble, change their mind when faced with new evidence, etc, I think the rest comes naturally.
b3morales 5y ago
> do you know any schools that teach it I think one of the article's premises is that they don't exist in our culture. That said, from what I've seen, this author's ideas seem to connect up well with the Brights group: http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/dennett_nyt_article.html http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/dennett_nyt_article... Those people do work in this vein and have published books. (I'm not sure how active that group is; I include it only as a pointer to dig up authors.)

by abss 5y ago

alboaie 5y ago

Traditionally, the bridge between stage 4 and 5 was reserved for "spiritual" seekers. And this is still a path to folow. While stage 4 people could consider spirituality a level 3 activity, hostory shows enough level 5 people that bridged over "duality" for example and that used "wisdom" as a proxy for metarationality. Having stronger "rationality based results" and call these result as "science results" makes the brdiging both easier and harder. It is easier because you get a stronger indicaton (lets say data) that rationality is an ilusion. However, you can also get lost in details: " became unable to see the forest because of the trees" ;)

katmannthree 5y ago

Can it even be taught directly? All of the information needed to transition through the various stages is readily out there, the strength of intellectual curiosity necessary to push through the less than comfortable transitions is something that people seem to either have or not. > It is there a risk of people faking meta-rationality? I think that intentionally faking a level of psychological development is only possible in the opposite direction.

PoignardAzur 5y ago

In my personal experience (take it with a grain of salt), the thing with "rationality" is, if you're looking for it, you'll find it, schools or not. People want to learn about the world around them, STEM or not. What stops that learning from happening is mostly internal: a fear of looking dumb, a fear of being proven wrong before peers, etc. If we can teach people to be humble, change their mind when faced with new evidence, etc, I think the rest comes naturally.

b3morales 5y ago

> do you know any schools that teach it I think one of the article's premises is that they don't exist in our culture. That said, from what I've seen, this author's ideas seem to connect up well with the Brights group: http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/dennett_nyt_article.html http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/dennett_nyt_article... Those people do work in this vein and have published books. (I'm not sure how active that group is; I include it only as a pointer to dig up authors.)