The Four Epistemic Naiveties/Pitfalls

[Carl-Richard]

Epistemic — relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation.
Naivety — innocence or unsophistication.
Pitfall — a hidden or unsuspected danger or difficulty.

Here is my rendition of the most common approaches to knowledge and their pitfalls. Usually, one leads to the next:

Naive realism

• takes things at face value
• believes in one's conditioning
• lack of introspection

It's the default mode for most people and is the most naive framework. It tries to label the world accurately, but it fails to become aware of its own constructions. These people think that their view of the world is like looking through a clear glass window, and that people who disagree with their view is either stupid or insane.

When you see through the naivety of naive realism, you will usually move on to skepticism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive skepticism:

Naive skepticism

• skeptical of most claims to knowledge
• extremely self-critical
• hyper-exclusive relativism

The naive skeptic is skeptical of all labelling of reality and is pulled down by cynicism and unconstructive behavior. They discard everything that isn't patently self-evident. An example is a person who goes into a philosophy seminar and asks "how do you know that?" until they get kicked out.

Seeing through naive skepticism will usually lead you to pragmatism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive pragmatism:

Naive pragmatism

• "everything goes"
• lack of criticism
• hyper-inclusive relativism

There is an openness to all views, but there is a lack of structure or hierarchy, and it therefore struggles to prioritize different claims to knowledge. For example, it will easily place an equal sign between pseudoscience and science (e.g. "astrology = physics").

Seeing through naive pragmatism will usually lead you to metatheorism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive metatheorism:

Naive metatheorism

• takes a wide perspective
• has a systematic approach to knowledge
• becomes lost in its own grand theories
• subtle realism

The naive metatheorist is open, critical and also realistic, and tries to synthesize a coherent system which integrates many types of knowledge.

The pitfall happens when one becomes a bit too optimistic about the universality of one's theories. You start believing that because a theory is "meta" and is able to zoom out across large perspectives (cross-paradigmatic, cross-cultural etc.), it somehow escapes or transcends the limitations of your own cultural and paradigmatic conditioning (i.e. the things that made you arrive at those conclusions in the first place). An example is believing Spiral Dynamics to be the infallible word of God.

That is of course a bit naive, and the way out is to counter that impulse with the earlier lessons of skepticism, and remind yourself that the better the model, the easier it is to get lost in one's own constructions.

 

Who is not naive in any way?

One who has experienced all of these pitfalls first-hand, but who doesn't let that fact curb their ever-expanding thirst for knowledge, and who doesn't pretend that naivety is something one can ever transcend.

 

Did anything I just wrote sound familiar to you? Be honest

[Realms of Wonder]

I fall into different categories in different situations, and as state of consciousness changes.

 

for example..

• On the forum, seeing people make wild claims that seem to have no grounding in their experience, seeming to be obviously a mental circle-jerk, I quickly hop into naïve skepticism with a hint of naïve metatheorism. Thinking my big picture of life is "better" asking questions and making statements from that place.
• With my Financial psychology: I tend to fall into the naïve realism category, though it is shifting as I gain more awareness into my limiting beleifs, cores stories, and ideas of money
• I can go through every stage on DMT. LOL.

Thanks for sharing, is thought-provoking!

 

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Realms of Wonder said:

I fall into different categories in different situations, and as state of consciousness changes.

That is inevitable, but some people get particularly stuck on one of them and it infects their mind for a bit. It's naivety rather than stupidity, because in a sense, it's the right conclusion for that person to make at that moment time. It's the most seductive option when you first come across that mode of thinking; the perfect mixture of simplicity and efficiency, the path of least resistance. Nuance comes with experience and practice.

 

3 hours ago, Realms of Wonder said:

Thanks for sharing, is thought-provoking!

Thanks!

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, JoeVolcano said:

Very familiar. Oddly reminiscent of my dad. Loves to play with model trains.

His whole house is one big junkyard now. It's gonna take some serious cleaning out when it comes time for him to move on.

Ah dad. Who would he be without his model trains.

Cheers

[Mulky]

Innocence isn't unsophistication.  Technically everything is innocent.

Good post though

Edited July 11, 2022 by Mulky

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Mulky said:

Innocence isn't unsophistication.

Naivety is both.

[Scholar]

On 8.7.2022 at 7:51 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Epistemic — relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation.
Naivety — innocence or unsophistication.
Pitfall — a hidden or unsuspected danger or difficulty.

Here is my rendition of the most common approaches to knowledge and their pitfalls. Usually, one leads to the next:

Naive realism

• takes things at face value
• believes in one's conditioning
• lack of introspection

It's the default mode for most people and is the most naive framework. It tries to label the world accurately, but it fails to become aware of its own constructions. These people think that their view of the world is like looking through a clear glass window, and that people who disagree with their view is either stupid or insane.

When you see through the naivety of naive realism, you will eventually move on to skepticism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive skepticism:

Naive skepticism

• skeptical of most claims to knowledge
• extremely self-critical
• deep relativism

The naive skeptic is skeptical of all labelling of reality and is pulled down by cynicism and unconstructive behavior. They discard everything that isn't patently self-evident. An example is a person who goes into a philosophy seminar and asks "how do you know that?" until they get kicked out.

Seeing through naive skepticism will eventually lead you to pragmatism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive pragmatism:

Naive pragmatism

• "everything goes"
• lack of criticism
• more subtle relativism

There is an openness to all views, but there is a lack of structure or hierarchy, and it therefore struggles to prioritize different claims to knowledge. For example, it will easily place an equal sign between pseudoscience and science (e.g. "astrology = physics").

Seeing through naive pragmatism will eventually lead you to metatheorism:

Naive metatheorism

• takes a wide perspective
• has a systematic approach to knowledge
• becomes lost in its own grand theories
• subtle realism

The naive metatheorist is open, critical and also realistic, and tries to synthesize a coherent system which integrates many types of knowledge.

The pitfall happens when one becomes a bit too optimistic about the universality of one's theories. You start believing that because a theory is "meta" and is able to zoom out across large perspectives (cross-paradigmatic, cross-cultural etc.), it somehow escapes or transcends the limitations of your own cultural and paradigmatic conditioning (i.e. the things that made you arrive at those conclusions in the first place). An example is believing Spiral Dynamics to be the infallible word of God.

That is of course a bit naive, and the way out is to counter that impulse with the earlier lessons of skepticism, and remind yourself that the better the model, the easier it is to get lost in one's own constructions.

 

Who is not naive in any way?

One who has experienced all of these pitfalls first-hand, but who doesn't let that fact curb their ever-expanding thirst for knowledge, and who doesn't pretend that naivety is something one can ever transcend.

 

Did anything I just wrote sound familiar to you? Be honest

I feel like this can just be described as:

 

Knowledge is how the world appears.

Knowledge is that which is rationally justified.

Knowledge is that which works.

Knowledge is that which gives the most holistic explanation of reality.

 

 

But the fundamental question is still, what is even knowledge here? It seems like you go from one survival construct to the next not knowing that you change the meaning of knowledge in pursuit of something.

[Carl-Richard]

22 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I feel like this can just be described as:

 

Knowledge is how the world appears.

Knowledge is that which is rationally justified.

Knowledge is that which works.

Knowledge is that which gives the most holistic explanation of reality.

You forgot about some of the pitfalls, which is the point of calling it "naive x". For example, a realist doesn't have to be a naive realist. It's the difference between something like a 14 year old militant atheist and John Vervaeke (although his worldview is also much more complex than that).

[Scholar]

16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You forgot about some of the pitfalls, which is the point of calling it "naive x". For example, a realist doesn't have to be a naive realist. It's the difference between something like a 14 year old militant atheist and John Vervaeke (although his worldview is also much more complex than that).

Sure but you described it like an evolution, like you realize the limitations of one system and then go to the next, as if the next was more sophisticated. It seemed to me more like the positions themselves have certain pitfalls, and recognizing them will naturally lead you to a completely new position/understanding of knowledge.

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Scholar said:

Sure but you described it like an evolution, like you realize the limitations of one system and then go to the next, as if the next was more sophisticated. It seemed to me more like the positions themselves have certain pitfalls, and recognizing them will naturally lead you to a completely new position/understanding of knowledge.

At the top, I said it's usually like that, but not always. I should've maybe reiterated "usually" with every introduction to the next system, e.g. "When you see through the naivety of naive realism, you will eventually usually move on to skepticism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive skepticism:"

For example, a naive skeptic doesn't necessarily have to evolve into a (naive) pragmatist. They can just become a more reserved skeptic (which in a sense is a budding pragmatist). You could think of a skeptic and a pragmatist as relativists with just opposing levels of inclusivity, i.e. "excluding almost all knowledge claims" vs. "including almost all knowledge claims", and different justifications for that inclusivity (certainty vs. utility).

The pragmatist is a level up (at least in the eyes of a metatheorist) in the sense that they can include skepticism within themselves, while the skeptic will shy away from that tendency. The naivety is mostly about how much you stumble in the attitude or approach to each framework (e.g. being too extreme, lacking nuance, using it as an ideological weapon etc.).

You can observe naive skepticism a lot on this forum, e.g. every time somebody uses non-duality to steamroll any type of discussion. The implication is always "this doesn't matter — just awaken". That is what is naive. It ignores a huge part the "meaning" aspect of spiritual growth (the "means" to grow), e.g. a nuanced approach to epistemology.

[DocWatts]

Great chart by the way.

When I think back I can definitely relate to Naive-Metatheorism, particularly when I was learning about both Spiral Dynamics and metamodernism for the first time.

Naive-Metatheorism may be a necessary stepping stone for many people to begin to appreciate the limitations of any conceptual model to fully capture the depth of Reality. It certainly was for me, at any rate.

As for transcending that pitfall, learning and eventually beginning to grok the Buddhist notion of emptiness (along with Heidegger's critique of all of Western philosophy) was definitely helpful. Though not something I would have been properly prepared to jump into without immersing myself in meta-theorizing for a good few years.

[UnbornTao]

@Carl-Richard @DocWatts Do you guys have a list of resources to learn all of this from?

[DocWatts]

@UnbornTao I suppose that depends on where you're at, since there's many different entry points depending on what your pre-existing Frame of Reference happens to be.

If you want to learn more about how paradigms work, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a great starting point that will teach you some epistomology, and is a fairly accessible read.

For another fairly accessible book that deals with epistomology, Lakoff and Johnson wrote a book called Metaphors We Live By which deals with how our embodiment frames the ways in we learn about and interact with the world.

If you already have a basic understanding of how paradigms work and at least some familiarity with meditative practices, you may find The Embodied Mind to be highly helpful.

I found it useful primarily as a way to reframe how I would approach meta-theories. While the focus of the work is cognitive science, the basic idea is broad enough to apply to other meta-paradigms.

If you're curious enough to put in the work for a challenging but very rewarding read, Heidegger's Being and Time is probably the most useful book on epistomology I've come across. But it's also very, very challenging, and not the sort of thing one can jump into without a good grasp of philosophy.

Edited July 11, 2022 by DocWatts

[UnbornTao]

@DocWatts

21 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

@UnbornTao I suppose that depends on where you're at, since there's many different entry points depending on what your pre-existing Frame of Reference happens to be.

If you want to learn more about how paradigms work, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a great starting point that will teach you some epistomology, and is a fairly accessible read.

For another fairly accessible book that deals with epistomology, Lakoff and Johnson wrote a book called Metaphors We Live By which deals with how our embodiment frames the ways in we learn about and interact with the world.

If you already have a basic understanding of how paradigms work and at least some familiarity with meditative practices, you may find The Embodied Mind to be highly helpful.

I found it useful primarily as a way to reframe how I would approach meta-theories. While the focus of the work is cognitive science, the basic idea is broad enough to apply to other meta-paradigms.

If you're curious enough to put in the work for a challenging but very rewarding read, Heidegger's Being and Time is probably the most useful book on epistomology I've come across. But it's also very, very challenging, and not the sort of thing one can jump into without a good grasp of philosophy.

Thanks man

[Carl-Richard]

@UnbornTao

I'll echo Kuhn.

 

7 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Great chart by the way.

Thank you!

[UnbornTao]

@Carl-Richard nice ?

[Mulky]

12 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Naivety is both.

Ok so both at the same time, I feel ya.  It's just you can seem innocent and be extremely sophisticated, and you can seem extremely not innocent and be completely devoid of any real understanding(very common).  So many people associate innocence with dumbness.  People will even feign being a mean spirited person to avoid seeming dumb, or just to fit in.  I know I'm using the word innocent in many different ways here but I feel it is a very misunderstood thing.  

It seems like it would be better to just say "not understanding something  you haven't come to understand yet" because saying naive has attached other things to the idea that aren't identical with what you are trying to describe, it seems like it already has a lot of built in assumptions.

When I look up the definition of naive

1. (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.

"the rather naive young man had been totally misled"

2. (of a person) natural and unaffected; innocent.

"Andy had a sweet, naive look when he smiled"

The first definition I can agree with you on, but the second won't work for what you are saying here, it would be an assumption.  

here is my issue with that word.

Only a person fitting description 1, would not know the innocence of everything, and knowing the innocence of everything is very likely to make you carry youself with a more innocent type of vibe.  So lack of understanding has caused beings to create and have this guilt/wrongness thing they believe in.  Then you learn a little more and now you seem just as innocent as someone who hasn't reached the stage of guilt yet.  

I realize I could be wrong about this, but all of the understandings that I have heard to cause people to not believe everything is innocent, are already taken into account and nestled inside the further understandings that have me currently seeing everything as innocent.

I'm sure you already know all this and I fully like your attitude and understanding you have exhibited here, just have a beef with that word.

Edited July 11, 2022 by Mulky

[Carl-Richard]

41 minutes ago, Mulky said:

Ok so both at the same time, I feel ya. 

Or sometimes one and sometimes the other. 

I wouldn't get so hung up on the particular words in this case, as long as you understand the flavor of the concept I'm trying to communicate (i.e. the different pitfalls that people usually fall into after having newly discovered those particular epistemic frameworks). That's just the pragmatist in me speaking ?

[Mulky]

No I totally get what you're saying and It's great I just got hung up on that word and then spewed out all my thoughts about it.