Reading “How to think” caused to realize that David Chapman’s main idea with metarationality may be somewhat close to the ideas that I have been exploring around the concept of a framing.
The point which he makes well here is that in order to apply a formal method of reasonig, one has to already formalize the problem. And many approaches to rationality may at least fail to emphasize the difficulty and importance of this step.
Reading “How to think” caused to realize that David Chapman’s main idea with metarationality may be somewhat close to the ideas that I have been exploring around the concept of a framing.
The point which he makes well here is that in order to apply a formal method of reasonig, one has to already formalize the problem. And many approaches to rationality may at least fail to emphasize the difficulty and importance of this step.
Reading “How to think” caused to realize that David Chapman’s main idea with metarationality may be somewhat close to the ideas that I have been exploring around the concept of a framing.
The point which he makes well here is that in order to apply a formal method of reasonig, one has to already formalize the problem. And many approaches to rationality may at least fail to emphasize the difficulty and importance of this step.
Reading “How to think” caused to realize that David Chapman’s main idea with metarationality may be somewhat close to the ideas that I have been exploring around the concept of a framing.
The point which he makes well here is that in order to apply a formal method of reasonig, one has to already formalize the problem. And many approaches to rationality may at least fail to emphasize the difficulty and importance of this step.
The progression of identifying with something to interacting with / playing with / manipulating the thing seems incredibly profound. Important examples:
Identifying with feelings ==> observing and interacting with feelings Identifying with roles ==> observing and interacting with roles Identifying with wants ==> observing and interacting with wants There seems to be an impulse in the article and possibly in the source material to see this as a continuous progression: wants, experiences, roles, systems.
The progression of identifying with something to interacting with / playing with / manipulating the thing seems incredibly profound. Important examples:
Identifying with feelings ==> observing and interacting with feelings Identifying with roles ==> observing and interacting with roles Identifying with wants ==> observing and interacting with wants There seems to be an impulse in the article and possibly in the source material to see this as a continuous progression: wants, experiences, roles, systems.
The progression of identifying with something to interacting with / playing with / manipulating the thing seems incredibly profound. Important examples:
Identifying with feelings ==> observing and interacting with feelings Identifying with roles ==> observing and interacting with roles Identifying with wants ==> observing and interacting with wants There seems to be an impulse in the article and possibly in the source material to see this as a continuous progression: wants, experiences, roles, systems.
In a nutshell, the idea seems to be that we suppress parts of ourselves, and then try to revive those parts of ourselves; but we usually do so by adding on some kind of contrived layer instead of returning to the original, organic, but suppressed part.
This seems to be partly because that original part was suppressed during a very early stage of our development, so it will still be at that stage.