= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I felt the idea sounded like it would be something to look into
Then why didn't you look into the evidence for it before writing a post?
3 reasons:
I'm the dumb kid on the block when it comes to less wrong. (If any of the census or my behavior in posting something that signals against the Less Wrong tribal stance are any indicators.)
I'm not (yet) a scientist, and I couldn't find any studies on this. Take into account that less wrong is "heavier" in scientists than usual for an online community, and I hoped that it would be something someone would either know about or find interesting.
This is the discussion forum, and I was hoping that there might be just that, discussion.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs ... on acid!
Its worth a read for sheer comedy value IMO.
If that's what it takes, I just wanted people to look this over and say what they thought, otherwise I wouldn't have posted to Discussion.
So far the rarest group is the most common group. Who'd a guessed?
That might be due to my reference to HPMOR, and it's tribal signaling. In hindsight that may have been a poor decision.
In response to
Nth_Level_Player
Minor point: The colloquial use of "deconstruction" is very vague. I suggest "analysis" or "description".
Are there really good statistics about what proportion of people are at these levels?
Shouldn't there be something about how consistently a person can maintain one of the higher-numbered points of view?
In response to
Nth_Level_Player
I'm someone from a background of the neobehaviorist perspective in psychology with some cognitivist leanings. I usually just dismiss work like this offhand as most likely pseudoscience. Strike one is that this work is partially derived from theories which I already know to be pseudoscience such as Maslow's theory of self-actualization. Strike two is that he is dismissive of many elements of behaviorism. However, I'm willing to be persuaded. What are the key elements of falsifiability within these theories? What experimental research has been conducted to test the validity of these theories; either in whole or in part? It doesn't help your cause that your in-depth link contains in the abstract:
Although the literature has produced a number of propositions, the notion that a leader's order of development should impact his or her leadership effectiveness or managerial performance has generated the most research. We found mixed support for this proposition as well as a number of limitations in the research in general. To have a greater impact on the leadership field, constructive-developmental theory needs to generate more robust research, to link more clearly with on-going streams of leadership research, and to explore the contribution of aspects of the theory beyond individual order of development.
Ok, I'm sorry if this post looks like it's speaking for CDT being correct. As listed in the header this is written based on Gwerley's post, and was intended to simplify the idea. (and add context to better imagine it)
I felt the idea sounded like it would be something to look into, as at least the first two levels seem like they are (more or less) correct. (I still wouldn't think this would be a terribly useful theory if applied to humans only, as the orders of mind seem like they're more evolutionary (notes 3 and 4) than developmental.)
In response to
Post Resource Request
I appreciate the encouragement (Karma), but what I need is further material. I don't have the material to make this into something (very) useful, and don't know where else to look. (Other than tearing apart the local libraries psychology sections which has thus far yielded Freud, Freud, Developmental Psychology, and more Freud.)
Rule #1: don't talk about starting a cult in a public place.
...If I actually wanted to start a cult I wouldn't post it. I was thinking something of starting something akin to the secular solstice. (Though I doubt most people could tell a cult from a group like this.)
Also Rule #74: When I create a multimedia presentation of my plan designed so that my five-year-old advisor can easily understand the details, I will not label the disk "Project Overlord" and leave it lying on top of my desk.
(We are on the Evil Overlord checklist right? I never finished copying it down.)
In response to
comment
by
on
[link] On the abundance of extraterrestrial life after the Kepler mission
How very human of you,
In response to
comment
by
on
[link] On the abundance of extraterrestrial life after the Kepler mission
How very human of you.
...Why not Zoidberg?
In response to
To Spread Science, Keep It Secret
Wait, can't we actually do that? People start cults all the time. We could start our own, teaching deep secrets that are actually true. We won't bring it up, but when an initiate asks "Hey, isn't this exactly what they teach in college?", nod and say "Yes, but it's more fun our way.". Making your own light bulb might still look pretty mundane, so it loses some of the cult competition, but it's still more fun that school.
Is this idea actualy do-able, if so it sounds like it would be fun. The obvious questions (to me) are:
How do you screen for membership, and can we do this in real life without the government(s) screwing it over?
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
In case it wasn't obvious, I was laughing at Timothy Leary's version, not yours.
Thank you for the clarification, but it doesn't bother me either way.