I agree that the two conversations naturally want to coincide: any discussion of a distant equilibrium as compared to the current one seems likely to include, by default, an evaluation of the costs of the change, which is Mountaineering. Likewise, wondering if a given equilibrium is a worthwhile goal (Summit-Seeking) seems to happen (at least to me) a lot in the middle of thinking about how to get there.
The two conversations are necessarily intertwined—but without the ability to distinguish clearly between them, I worry about people talking past one another, where one person thinks they’re still Summit-Seeking while the other believes the conversation has moved to Mountaineering.
I guess I kind of think of it like dye in water—once properly dissolved, the two are indistinguishable, but it’s still valuable to be able to talk about water-without-dye and dye-without-water.
Thanks for the feedback!
I agree that the two conversations naturally want to coincide: any discussion of a distant equilibrium as compared to the current one seems likely to include, by default, an evaluation of the costs of the change, which is Mountaineering. Likewise, wondering if a given equilibrium is a worthwhile goal (Summit-Seeking) seems to happen (at least to me) a lot in the middle of thinking about how to get there.
The two conversations are necessarily intertwined—but without the ability to distinguish clearly between them, I worry about people talking past one another, where one person thinks they’re still Summit-Seeking while the other believes the conversation has moved to Mountaineering.
I guess I kind of think of it like dye in water—once properly dissolved, the two are indistinguishable, but it’s still valuable to be able to talk about water-without-dye and dye-without-water.