This seems a useful distinction to make. I think your terms also make sense, as this was indeed the kind-of-thing I expected them to distinguish between when reading the title.
I do want to note that discussions about summit-seeking might include mountaineering considerations. If the price to get to the new equilibrium is very high, this could lead one to decide not to aim for this equilibrium at all, even though the equilibrium itself (the summit) is good in other dimensions.
Maybe this is already what you’re pointing at when you mention the “feasibility” of an equilibrium, but I think it’s worth stating explicitly.
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.
This seems a useful distinction to make. I think your terms also make sense, as this was indeed the kind-of-thing I expected them to distinguish between when reading the title.
I do want to note that discussions about summit-seeking might include mountaineering considerations. If the price to get to the new equilibrium is very high, this could lead one to decide not to aim for this equilibrium at all, even though the equilibrium itself (the summit) is good in other dimensions.
Maybe this is already what you’re pointing at when you mention the “feasibility” of an equilibrium, but I think it’s worth stating explicitly.
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.