= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
you could probably still follow-up with some of us from the original 2012 study for what it's worth. i think it's safe to reveal now that i was in the control group and have still not attended a cfar workshop, and that may well be the case with some of my cohorts, though i don't know just how small a group we are.
In response to
Understanding Agency
I think this post makes a good case for the usefulness of the 4 vs 3 distinction towards rationality. I can see where it potentially names a concept which feels central but hasn't been well-characterized before. Thank you for the name, and for the links!
It'd be really cool if someone could write up a more lesswrong-oriented intro to constructive developmental theory, especially focusing on (1) reproducibility throughout the spectrum, (2) any known correlates of interest, and (3) any known work on how to teach level-4+ thinking as a skill.
Maybe that someone is you.
Constructive developmental theory appears to be fairly reproducible in that inter-rater reliability is extremely high if that's what you mean.
Constructive development level is known to correlate with leadership skill. This is kind of cherry-picking, though, because no one other than management consultants has seemed to even try to apply constructive developmental theory in the real world (or if they have it failed and they didn't tell anyone).
The same management consultants have made a business of helping people reaching level 4, because they are dramatically more effective leaders than folks who primarily think at level 3 or, worse yet, level 2. Level 2 thinking is basically what gets you the typical Pointed Haired Boss of Dilbert fame. Level 3 gets you "leaders" who people like but who actually tend to have a hard time leading because they have difficulty making decisions without over-consulting others.
If I get you, you're saying that in practice getting to level 4 generally carries you past that gap. Like the patterns of thought accrete into a sort of momentum.
Right. It seems that whatever is actually involved in primarily engaging in constructive developmental level 4 thinking tends to come along with a package of other things, although it's not entirely clear what that package of things is.
For example, constructive developmental level is positively correlated with leadership skill.
https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/harris_lauren_s_200512_ms.pdf
So that gives us some ideas of things that seem to come along with higher constructive developmental levels, but sadly the literature has primarily focused on reasoning out conclusions and done very little to test if constructive developmental level correlates with stuff, which would be useful here for figuring out what to expect at particular levels.
In response to
Understanding Agency
Interesting, but seems unconvincing and not very motivating.
Assuming the CDT system, I'd presume that most people on LessWrong have hit 4/3; level 4 is simply defined to be the level at which you reliably apply metacognition. Fine, but I don't see that reliably applying metacognition dissolves the problems of akrasia. Right now I'd say that level 4 is necessary, but insufficient. There's a gap. Or, at least I perceive a gap.
So here's my question: Are you unable to imagine someone who holds themselves as object having akrasia, or do you think such people cannot exist?
"I know many folks who have been part of the Less Wrong community for a long time yet have thus far won very little."
This is certainly a concern.
I actually think that no, most folks on LW have not reached 4/3, and it's what's holding them back. The same is true of the general population.
As for the gap you perceive, you're right that there is one if we limit ourselves to talking about the defining characteristics of constructive developmental levels, but constructive development tends to carry along with it a package of patterns of thought that fill that gap.
So to answer your question, yes, such a person could exist, however there should be relatively few such people who don't, in a period of a year or two, don't get over their akrasia barring any particular mental abnormalities.
I understand that such people exist, but do not have a good model of what it is like to be one; I have decent models of specific people who approximately meet that description, but no general case. And the description of 3 and 5 are equally alien to me; I have difficulty imagining a version of myself which does not have as its driving fear "falling short of [my] own standards" (4) to a pathological degree. A large degree of my problems as a child were a consistent lack of ability to have my identity "tied to living in relationship with others in roles determined by one’s local culture" (3), be "influenced by what she or he believes others want to hear" (3), or to give respect to authority I perceived as inadequate by my own standards (luckily, I had a sufficient supply of smart teachers I did respect that I never did this enough to get thrown out of school, but it was a very near thing one year). I have been judging myself by my own personal standards since elementary school (and finding myself lacking, natch); I might be 4(2) but I'm very certainly not 3.
Also, I'll believe the assessment data when I see it. Specifically, some assessments run by people who do not subscribe to this model of development; this overview page looks pretty strongly like it's making excuses for the lack of dragon in advance, and additionally it indicates that their job depends upon believing it's true, so I'm very suspicious that they will get trustworthy results.
I agree that constructive development theory has been unfortunately ignored more than it should have been and needs more evidence surrounding it to prove or disprove it. However an aspect of the assessment tools is that they can be run by someone of any constructive development level, so it should be relatively easy to gather additional data using assessors who even actively disagree with constructive development theory. Assuming future data matches the existing data, this would suggest that the constructive development levels are are useful measurement tool, although that certainly still leaves open debate on what they assess.
I'm also not really aware of any assessments being done outside the Anglosphere, so it's also possible the whole thing will collapse under cultural differences. I don't consider it likely, but it would certainly be interesting if that happened.
In response to
Understanding Agency
Author, ladies and gentlemen of the comments: http://lesswrong.com/lw/kg/expecting_short_inferential_distances/
Yep, I had that in mind when I was writing, which is why I went through the trouble of offering an apology and links. I'm actually surprised that the criticism has been as light as it has been.
Your writing mistakes here make this worse than useless; they signal crackpottery and cultishness in such a way that not posting it would be superior to posting it in it's current form. Especially since if it's true, then by your own admission it's only comprehensible to people who don't need it, and only useful to people who can't comprehend it.
I think you think I have way more influence than I do and are probably overly concerned with the image of Less Wrong I present. I guess I have little to say to that because I don't much care at the moment: I'm more interested in exploring these ideas and bettering myself and hopefully others than I am in presenting a particular image of Less Wrong.
I think the main people this article is useful for are two groups: those on the margin just about the do enough level 4 thinking that this inspires them on, and those who will understand it and by so doing better appreciate the value of constructive development theory. My main purpose in writing is to reach this latter group, because I hope that by sharing with them the explanatory power of constructive development theory for making sense of things that they may be trying to help others with, they may advance in the study of how to make people stronger, a al CFAR.
By "not universal", I don't necessarily mean that you can't fit most into the theory, I mean the theory doesn't help me understand most people I interact with, and it doesn't help me understand myself.
There are way more biases and weightings in decisionmaking than this binary approach to actor/acted-upon, and most actions have relationships between hundreds of things, each with different levels of influence and counter-influence.
I agree. I do not see this as a single theory that explains everything, only an important theory that explains a very important thing. Human minds are messy, real systems with lots of complexities, so of course any model will have to give up some resolution to be useful.
I'm sorry that it doesn't help you understand yourself or others better. The fact that it doesn't is a major reason why I think we need to put more effort into developing it, and I hope my posting this will increase the exposure enough to attract the attention of others who are more focused on solving the problem of helping other people better themselves.
In response to
Understanding Agency
This comes off as purely bragging and applause lights. And several of the applause lights aren't relevant. (that chapter of HPMoR and the 12th virtue of rationality)
Additionally, I disagree with one of the premises, which is that CDT is meaningful and useful but can only be well-understood by people who have reached a certain level in its hierarchy. I feel competent to make this judgment, because by its own description, I uncomfortably sit in level 4 (and have a very poor model of what it means to be level 3; I suspect some unpleasant circumstances and mild neuroatypicality made me leapfrog 3). And the theory does not seem to have explanatory power,
Or in short: Scrap this post and come back when you can explain it better, and don't use excuses like 'this needs higher-order thinking' ; I'll believe you have an insight but you're not conveying it now, and those excuses are just excuses.
I should also reply more directly to your comments.
I think you are right to criticize my presentation. I'm by no means an expert writer, and despite the significant effort I put into producing this article I'm not satisfied myself with the quality of the explanations, so it hardly surprises me that others feel the same way. You can view my limitations as "just" excuses if you like, but I mostly look at them as tradeoffs: I can either publish this kind of confusing thing or spend months becoming a better writer. Unfortunately for my dear readers I've chosen to leave my writing confusing rather than devote more time now to writing better, and I suffer the consequences for it as much as they do.
I'm not sure that I'm seeking applause lights. That section only got included after Ethan pointed out to me that he saw a similarity between what I was talking about and what recalled from HPMOR and CFAR. Having those, I thought it appropriate to see if Eli had written something in the sequences that was relevant, but since he mostly seems to gloss over agency and takes it as given.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Is there an RSS feed for new posts?
medium makes it a little hard to find the rss feeds, but it's at:
https://medium.com/feed/map-and-territory