What level of cognitive complexity do you actually operate at?

[El Zapato]

On 10/16/2024 at 7:47 PM, Carl-Richard said:

This isn't about SD, but cognitive complexity ☺️

Cognitive complexity is basically what distinguishes the people who make the theories from the people who teach them (or simply use them). If you have 160 IQ but you're mostly at 11-12 Formal-Systematic, you can be at top 1% of most published researchers and slowly inch the paradigm forward, but not a revolutionary scientist who shatters the paradigm.

 

 

What is striking about this distinction between cognitive complexity and symbolic code is that you realize geniuses of history like Plato and Aristotle were extremely cognitively complex (14-15 paradigmatic–cross-paradigmatic), but because of their time, they had to work with what they had (essentially nothing) to create new systems of thought almost completely from scratch. And today, these systems of thought make up the very foundations of our society which us simpleminded people can install and "shoulder-stand" on. And today, we have people like Ken Wilber doing the same thing, providing free code for us to download. But just because you downloaded the code and speak the language, don't make the mistake of thinking you could've created the code all by yourself (or maybe he just read a lot, who knows 😝)

Just my opinion of course, but Aristotle was an asshole.  I believe my original ideas on that are quite elevated.   

[Espaim]

11-12, maybe sometimes going up to 13 if particularly well-fed and slept nicely. Honestly, I have to strain myself a bit to understand 13. 4 if I'm hungry 

Interesting theory by the way. Thanks for the knowledge.

[caspex]

There's a problem.

Neither your post nor the article do a good job at explaining the stages or defining the words used such as systems or concepts.

As a result it seems like everybody here is going largely by their own of perspective, and by looking at the replies those perspectives aren't very close.

It's not possible to ascertain one's level like this or to correlate it with others.

There's problems with relating it to human development as well. Certainly, it seems logical to correlate it with SD but it's nonsensical. Compounding the limitations of SD on top of the limitations of this model doesn't leave much room for accuracy.

The concept of Symbolic Code is a great one and explains a phenomena.

Your overall suspicion is correct in that there must be a pattern among the various complexities in thinking and the ability of forming systems, ideas, paradigms etc. But this model does an average job at best.

I wouldn't recommend using it.

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, caspex said:

There's a problem.

Neither your post nor the article do a good job at explaining the stages or defining the words used such as systems or concepts.

Hanzi Freinacht provides an in-depth analysis of level 10-13 with helpful practical examples in his book. It might help reading that.

I do agree that it can be difficult to follow the terminology, especially when I sometimes use the word "concept" as a stand-in for "abstract concept", while the model uses that word to describe one of the lower stages (4 Sensory-motor). But it's an analytically rigorous model that takes some time to learn. I'm not expecting everybody to take the time to learn it. I'm just sharing my thoughts. However, if you appreciate the work of Ken Wilber, he incorporates this model into his work, so if you want to understand Wilber, it helps (if it's not absolutely necessary) to learn this model.

 

10 hours ago, caspex said:

As a result it seems like everybody here is going largely by their own of perspective, and by looking at the replies those perspectives aren't very close.

That's the eternal problem of people interpreting models, especially SD or related theories that are supposed to map levels of existence that some people don't have access to.

 

10 hours ago, caspex said:

There's problems with relating it to human development as well. Certainly, it seems logical to correlate it with SD but it's nonsensical. Compounding the limitations of SD on top of the limitations of this model doesn't leave much room for accuracy.

Why is it nonsensical? 🤔

 

10 hours ago, caspex said:

Your overall suspicion is correct in that there must be a pattern among the various complexities in thinking and the ability of forming systems, ideas, paradigms etc. But this model does an average job at best.

I wouldn't recommend using it.

I would recommend using it if you cross-reference some sources (e.g. the original creators, Freinacht, Wilber).

Edited October 21 by Carl-Richard

[caspex]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Hanzi Freinacht provides an in-depth analysis of level 10-13 with helpful practical examples in his book. It might help reading that.

I do agree that it can be difficult to follow the terminology, especially when I sometimes use the word "concept" as a stand-in for "abstract concept", while the model uses that word to describe one of the lower stages (4 Sensory-motor). But it's an analytically rigorous model that takes some time to learn. I'm not expecting everybody to take the time to learn it. I'm just sharing my thoughts. However, if you appreciate the work of Ken Wilber, he incorporates this model into his work, so if you want to understand Wilber, it helps (if it's not absolutely necessary) to learn this model.

 

That's the eternal problem of people interpreting models, especially SD or related theories that are supposed to map levels of existence that some people don't have access to.

 

Why is it nonsensical? 🤔

 

I would recommend using it if you cross-reference some sources (e.g. the original creators, Freinacht, Wilber).

Thanks will look up the book.

[Keryo Koffa]

Here's GPT's summary, maybe we can crossreference our model interpretations to find a consensus.

Stage 10: Abstract Stage

• Example: An individual understands climate change in terms of abstract concepts like greenhouse gases, carbon footprints, and the impact of deforestation. They grasp that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global warming.
  • Key Action: Thinking revolves around the isolated concept of carbon reduction, and the individual might suggest simple actions like recycling or reducing personal car use.
    • Complexity: Focus on abstract reasoning, but without much systemic integration. The approach is still relatively simplistic, dealing with broad categories rather than the complexities of interconnected factors.
       

Stage 11: Formal Stage

• Example: The person now engages in hypothetical-deductive reasoning, analyzing the impact of various actions based on scientific models. They start thinking in terms of “if-then” scenarios, using data from climate science to predict outcomes of different carbon reduction strategies.
  • Key Action: They might advocate for policies like carbon taxes or renewable energy investments by showing how these actions will lead to measurable reductions in emissions over time.
    • Complexity: The shift is toward applying scientific reasoning to abstract ideas, but it's still within the confines of single-variable solutions like reducing emissions or implementing specific green technologies.
       

Stage 12: Systematic Stage

• Example: At this stage, the person starts to understand climate change as a system involving complex interactions between economics, technology, policy, and ecosystems. They recognize that it’s not just about carbon emissions but how all these factors co-influence each other.
  • Key Action: They might propose multi-pronged strategies combining economic incentives, legislative changes, and social behavior to create a systematic approach to reducing emissions across industries.
    • Complexity: Thinking becomes more sophisticated, recognizing feedback loops between systems (e.g., how climate policies affect economies, which in turn impact technological innovation). They can design policies that account for these interactions, like a cap-and-trade system.
       

Stage 13: Metasystematic Stage

• Example: Now, the individual can synthesize multiple systems into a coherent framework. They consider how economic, political, social, and ecological systems intersect with climate action, developing frameworks that bridge these systems.
  • Key Action: They may develop a framework like the Green New Deal, which not only addresses climate change but also integrates job creation, social justice, energy policy, and economic reform into one system. They understand that solving climate change requires transformation in multiple domains, not just isolated policies.
    • Complexity: This stage integrates systems-level understanding and coordinates across disciplines (e.g., climate science, economics, sociology) to develop broader, more encompassing strategies.
       

Stage 14: Paradigmatic Stage

• Example: The individual now operates at a level where they are creating new paradigms that redefine how society approaches climate change. Instead of focusing on mitigation or adaptation alone, they might propose a post-carbon economy based on entirely new principles.
  • Key Action: Developing concepts like the circular economy, which reimagines the relationship between consumption, production, and waste, moving beyond the traditional linear economy. This paradigm shift would advocate for an economy where resources are continually reused and replenished, breaking with centuries-old industrial models.
    • Complexity: They are not just coordinating across systems; they are redefining the system itself, introducing a new way of thinking that challenges the assumptions of previous stages (e.g., infinite growth, reliance on fossil fuels).
       

Stage 15: Cross-Paradigmatic Stage

• Example: At this level, the individual is capable of integrating multiple paradigms that may initially seem contradictory. For example, they might merge the ecological paradigm (which prioritizes sustainability) with the economic growth paradigm, creating a synthesis that allows for sustainable development without sacrificing economic vitality.
  • Key Action: They could create a global governance framework that unites different paradigms under a cohesive new system—balancing economic growth, climate justice, technology, and ecology—while acknowledging and harmonizing previously conflicting goals.
    • Complexity: They develop meta-theories that bring together paradigms across fields. For instance, integrating Indigenous ecological knowledge with advanced technological innovations in renewable energy and global trade policies.
       

Stage 16: Universal Stage

• Example: At this final level, the individual operates at the most abstract and universal level of reasoning, where they can see climate change as part of the universal coordination of human and ecological systems. They may understand climate action in the context of planetary stewardship, integrating not just human interests but the health of the entire biosphere, considering long-term, multi-generational impacts on all life forms.
  • Key Action: They might advocate for a new global ethical framework based on the concept of Earth as a living organism (Gaia theory) or develop a universal code of conduct that harmonizes human activity with ecological principles, transcending national boundaries and ideologies.
    • Complexity: Their thinking involves universal principles that apply across all systems and contexts, advocating for global unity in purpose, with the aim of transforming humanity’s role from dominator to caretaker of the Earth.
       

Distinctions Between Stages:

• 10 to 11 (Abstract to Formal): Moves from understanding isolated abstract concepts (e.g., “carbon footprint”) to using hypothetical models to predict outcomes and suggest specific, isolated solutions based on reasoning (e.g., proposing carbon taxes based on emission models).
  • 11 to 12 (Formal to Systematic): Elevation here involves recognizing interconnections between systems (e.g., linking economic and ecological systems) and how changes in one affect the other. The solutions move from simple cause-effect relationships to multifactor systems-level solutions (e.g., cap-and-trade).
    • 12 to 13 (Systematic to Metasystematic): At this level, the individual synthesizes entire systems, understanding how they interact at a meta-level, often across fields and disciplines. The focus is on coordinating multiple systems (e.g., integrating job creation, energy policy, and ecological sustainability in one framework).
      • 13 to 14 (Metasystematic to Paradigmatic): A shift occurs toward creating new paradigms, where the individual doesn’t just work within existing systems but proposes entirely new structures and models (e.g., circular economy, post-carbon society).
        • 14 to 15 (Paradigmatic to Cross-Paradigmatic): Here, the individual synthesizes multiple paradigms that may initially seem contradictory, creating new holistic systems that incorporate diverse viewpoints (e.g., merging growth-oriented economics with sustainability ethics).
          • 15 to 16 (Cross-Paradigmatic to Universal): The thinking expands to a universal, all-encompassing perspective, integrating the entire biosphere, considering both human and non-human interests, and advocating for universal ethical frameworks that transcend individual systems or paradigms.

Edited October 21 by Keryo Koffa

[ChrisZoZo]

I’m somewhere between being insecure and turquoise.

[Carl-Richard]

@Keryo Koffa LLMs' weakness is to accurately represent factual or theoretical knowledge. It routinely makes mistakes with this. I don't believe what it said about the levels is particularly useful or even true. If you want to be completely on the safe side, only use LLMs to develop ideas, not to learn about existing ideas, or only to provide suggestions of where to learn about existing ideas.

Edited October 22 by Carl-Richard