In a recent post Gwerley covered Constructive Developmental Theory, and Subject-Object Notation. I'll be going through a basic description of the ideas, as well as adding related ideas from the Four Player Model. Constructive Developmental Theory: Constructive Developmental Theory is a Theory of Mind that splits the development of people...
After having viewed a recent post by Gworley I noticed that the material was deliberately opaque*. It's not as complicated as it seems, and should be able to be taught to people at lower than "Level 4" on Kegan's Constructive Developmental Theory. The only serious block I saw was the...
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.
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.
That might be due to my reference to HPMOR, and it's tribal signaling. In hindsight that may have been a poor decision.
Fixed, thank you.
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 a recent post Gwerley covered Constructive Developmental Theory, and Subject-Object Notation. I'll be going through a basic description of the ideas, as well as adding related ideas from the Four Player Model.
Constructive Developmental Theory is a Theory of Mind that splits the development of people into five levels, though the levels each have a unique set of advantages/disadvantages, not being "better" or "worse" than one another.1 This theory is largely based on if the individual is subject to something or able to hold it as an object using meta cognition, such that each level holds the previous levels as special cases.2 This progress makes it so a higher order mind... (read 1420 more words →)
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.)
After having viewed a recent post by Gworley I noticed that the material was deliberately opaque*. It's not as complicated as it seems, and should be able to be taught to people at lower than "Level 4" on Kegan's Constructive Developmental Theory. The only serious block I saw was the ridiculous gap in inferential distance.
With that in mind I was hoping someone might have recommendations on even tangentially related material as what I have now appears to be insufficient. (Simplifying CDT appears to be manageable, but not particularly useful without further material like Kantor's Four Player Model and Subject-Object Notation.)
*edit: Not Gworley's, it was Kegan's material that was opaque.
...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.)
How very human of you.
...Why not Zoidberg?
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?
Thank you for the clarification, but it doesn't bother me either way.