Go further. Phrased this way, it _IS_ a status attack.
To be clear, I don’t every think anyone should phrase it that way (and I think usually people don’t). But it’s still just not hard to interpret through that lens even if you’re moderately careful in phrasing.
I think a lot of harm is done by framing it as a linear set of stages, rather than a mesh of abstractions, and recognizing that object-level results are ALWAYS relevant, and the stages are mostly ways to take more factors into account for the models and beliefs that lead to results.
Yeah, I basically agree with this.
My guess is to frame things in terms of skills to learn or particular attributes to acquire.
My guess is to frame things in terms of skills to learn or particular attributes to acquire.
IMO, even this is too status-ey and centered on attributes of the person rather than crux-ey and centered on the discussion you want to have.
Frame things in terms of models of thinking and level of abstraction/generalization to apply here and now. There may be skills to learn (or even attributes that can’t be acquired, making the conversation at that level impossible) in order to get there, but start with what you want to understand/communicate, not with an assumption of capability (or lack thereof).
Doing this is also a reminder that sometimes washing the dishes is just the fastest way to empty the sink—generalizing to some idealized division of labor and social reward scheme doesn’t have to happen every time. It often works better to generalize when there’s not an object-level decision to be made (but beware failing to tie it back to reality at all, or you’ll ignore important details).
To be clear, I don’t every think anyone should phrase it that way (and I think usually people don’t). But it’s still just not hard to interpret through that lens even if you’re moderately careful in phrasing.
Yeah, I basically agree with this.
My guess is to frame things in terms of skills to learn or particular attributes to acquire.
IMO, even this is too status-ey and centered on attributes of the person rather than crux-ey and centered on the discussion you want to have.
Frame things in terms of models of thinking and level of abstraction/generalization to apply here and now. There may be skills to learn (or even attributes that can’t be acquired, making the conversation at that level impossible) in order to get there, but start with what you want to understand/communicate, not with an assumption of capability (or lack thereof).
Doing this is also a reminder that sometimes washing the dishes is just the fastest way to empty the sink—generalizing to some idealized division of labor and social reward scheme doesn’t have to happen every time. It often works better to generalize when there’s not an object-level decision to be made (but beware failing to tie it back to reality at all, or you’ll ignore important details).