I'm not sure if going to the bathroom is a "smart" adjustment between conscious and subconscious, or if it's closer to firing neurons in the region associated with it (that is to say, instead of a communication networks, it may be closer to just flipping on a switch). What would agree with the latter, is that studies show that the region of the brain associated with it is overly active when under the influence of alcohol. I think resting all day (and as a result, not wishing to do serious work) could probably be better explained by less blood flow to the brain (and as a result, less oxygen) due to lack of movement. On top of this, our bodies tend to operate in 12-hour cycles. If you are active for a while, your telling your brain it's in that 12-hour cycle. If your inactive, your telling it your in your inactive cycle.

What I know from reading the posts by the author of FPV suggests that the core of FPV is the algorithm of processing the list (with dots and so on). Just writing a disorganised list of all your tasks and crossing them out hardly seems to come from any specific "system", so I don't know which elements you mean when you say "[...] recognise elements from [FPV]".

I tend to do the same thing as the notches, only I write lttle tick marks.

Today has been a day full of suck and I don't know why but at least I wrote this out.

Haha, feels.

Have you considered posting these things to your blog instead?

To me that seems like a misapplication. The politician who makes sure that his friends get forward can be at stage 3 without being idealistic.

A politician who is in a party because they want to advance capitalism or because they want to advance liberalism would likely be in stage 4 because their loyality is to the institution and not to people.

I have an impression of some politician who operate at the city level in Berlin that doesn't come through the media. I would categories those people mostly as stage 3 or stage 4.

How would you characterize yourself in Kagan's framework?

I like that you analysed this topic, however after thinking about it I came to conclusions that are not compatible with your approach.

I do not believe you are suggesting any policy in practice that is substantially different from what I'd suggest.

However I want to oppose the "filter" approach, and suggest it is more growth-y to look at this differently.

The idea of using a "filter" on your communication sounds to me like it suggests "dressing up" or softening your statements, which blocks people from transferring their thoughts to other people. Which makes all the people involved lose.

Instead, I suggest to keep conversations healthy to such a degree, that you can say whatever it is you wanted to express. And also to preempt any misunderstanding by saying what you DON'T mean if the topic is sensitive.

But basically I strongly oppose the approach that assumes filtering communication.

It makes more sense to work on preparing ground to enable communication to happen more efficiently and without undue emotion/offense.

In politicians who in their lifetimes change from being idealistic to being self-serving and calculated, we will observe a period of backing off from politics in the middle of the change.

Why do you think that Kegan's model makes that prediction?

I remember having a similar discussion about HIV and anti-retroviral drugs.

In short, it's an easy position to take if you and the people you care about aren't currently in the firing line and making policy choices on assumptions about future discoveries that we can't guarantee is ethically problematic.

I am not ready to definitely accept the Kegan levels as a useful model because often it makes retrospective predictions. Rather than predictions of the future. A model is only as useful as what it can predict

OK, let's think about some predictions I can make from Kegan's model, about things I have no idea if they are true:

1. There are significantly more people who go from caring emotionally about relations with colleagues at work to not caring, than the other way round.

2. When adolescents become able to resist peer pressure, it is correlated with increased tendency to make commitments to themselves and others.

3. In politicians who in their lifetimes change from being idealistic to being self-serving and calculated, we will observe a period of backing off from politics in the middle of the change.

4. People who have trouble with social relationships, will also have trouble dealing with situations where the society formulated formal rules, but the optimal solution lies outside of those rules (such as law etc.).

I know that these are kind of vague, but that's what I could think of on the spot.

Yes; this approach is helpful and I do this too.

I would however add that a slight "nudge" is often not enough when it matters. You will reach to the back of the shelf, and eat the cookie.

In the end, there is not much that works except for not having any cookies in your house.

But what if you really care to do this right?

Then, I say, buy 1000 cookies. Then shout in a loud voice, "I WILL NEVER EAT A COOKIE AGAIN." Then dump the 1000 cookies in the garbage can. And do a happy dance, and repeat 50 times "I WILL NEVER EAT A COOKIE AGAIN".

Silly? Yes.

Works? Yes.

If we are talking about PCs, then mounting filesystems read only is a killer: https://sites.google.com/site/linuxpendrive/rorootfs