Is there a implication of ranking with the way the levels are numbered? Are Level 5 people “more advanced” than lower levels and should one strive to move up levels?
The linked post gives a brief overview. The higher levels are ‘more advanced’ in that there is an asymmetry; the level 5 can emulate a level 4 more easily than a level 4 can emulate a level 5. But that doesn’t translate to ‘more advanced’ in all possible meanings. A relevant quote from the link:
Kegan likes to make the analogy of comparing drivers who can drive a stick-shift with drivers who only drive an automatic. Can we say that someone is a “better driver” simply because they can drive a stick?
My experience is that it’s related to, but distinct from, g. High g and more mature age make the higher levels easier but don’t create them on their own.
Why would a high-IQ level 4 person have trouble emulating level 5? See e.g. Sokal, etc.
ETA: I looked through the linked article and I stick by my impression that this is a straightforward IQ ladder modified by “maturity” (appropriate socio-emotional development, I guess?) In particular, I expect that levels have pretty hard IQ requirements, e.g. a person with the IQ of 80 just won’t make it to Level 4.
I think it is partly linked to IQ. I agree that there are probably limits to the levels people at low IQs can achieve,
But there is also a development process that takes time. Few teenagers, no matter how smart, are at level 5 Think by analogy that few 15 year old people have mastered quantum field theory. No matter how smart you are it takes time
Sokal is emulating level 3 people who think they are level 5. These people are anti-modern not post-modern. Most post-modernists are at level 3 as far as I can tell. I have been trawling through their works to assess this.
A level 5 physicist might be someone like say Robert Laughlin a Nobel Physicist who wrote a book “A Different Universe” questioning how fundamental ‘fundamental’ physics is. He has mastered modernist physics and is now building on this. This is very different from a Deepak Chopra type who doesn’t even get to first base in this enterprise.
I don’t think Sokal is an example of systems of systems thinking. (The post-modernist label is not a particularly useful one; here it means the level after the modernist level, and is only partly connected to other things called post-modernist.)
Why would a high-IQ person have trouble emulating someone of the opposite sex? (There doesn’t appear to be the same asymmetry—both men and women seem bad at modeling each other—but hopefully this will point out the sort of features that might be relevant.)
The linked post gives a brief overview. The higher levels are ‘more advanced’ in that there is an asymmetry; the level 5 can emulate a level 4 more easily than a level 4 can emulate a level 5. But that doesn’t translate to ‘more advanced’ in all possible meanings. A relevant quote from the link:
So the implication is that’s a straight IQ ladder, then. My original objection stands.
My experience is that it’s related to, but distinct from, g. High g and more mature age make the higher levels easier but don’t create them on their own.
Why would a high-IQ level 4 person have trouble emulating level 5? See e.g. Sokal, etc.
ETA: I looked through the linked article and I stick by my impression that this is a straightforward IQ ladder modified by “maturity” (appropriate socio-emotional development, I guess?) In particular, I expect that levels have pretty hard IQ requirements, e.g. a person with the IQ of 80 just won’t make it to Level 4.
I think it is partly linked to IQ. I agree that there are probably limits to the levels people at low IQs can achieve,
But there is also a development process that takes time. Few teenagers, no matter how smart, are at level 5 Think by analogy that few 15 year old people have mastered quantum field theory. No matter how smart you are it takes time
Sokal is emulating level 3 people who think they are level 5. These people are anti-modern not post-modern. Most post-modernists are at level 3 as far as I can tell. I have been trawling through their works to assess this.
A level 5 physicist might be someone like say Robert Laughlin a Nobel Physicist who wrote a book “A Different Universe” questioning how fundamental ‘fundamental’ physics is. He has mastered modernist physics and is now building on this. This is very different from a Deepak Chopra type who doesn’t even get to first base in this enterprise.
I don’t think Sokal is an example of systems of systems thinking. (The post-modernist label is not a particularly useful one; here it means the level after the modernist level, and is only partly connected to other things called post-modernist.)
Why would a high-IQ person have trouble emulating someone of the opposite sex? (There doesn’t appear to be the same asymmetry—both men and women seem bad at modeling each other—but hopefully this will point out the sort of features that might be relevant.)