Warning: Rather obvious things will be said below.
I don’t know what ‘obvious’ means. That something can be derived with minimum effort? That something can be verified with trivial effort? That something comes to mind quickly given … what?
I haven’t seen such a list and I’m not aware of such a structured presentation of the capabilities. But I guess it exists.
You didn’t provide refernces but using the key terms from your first list google turns up the following (your post being the first hit):
I guess the reason I wrote that was people might say something like: “Well of course meta-capabilities are important. Duh.” But thanks for reminding me that the “obvious” might be valuable; or not be so “obvious” at all.
By the way, also thanks for the links. I made up the list myself. I will look into other references as well.
I don’t know what ‘obvious’ means. That something can be derived with minimum effort? That something can be verified with trivial effort? That something comes to mind quickly given … what?
I haven’t seen such a list and I’m not aware of such a structured presentation of the capabilities. But I guess it exists.
You didn’t provide refernces but using the key terms from your first list google turns up the following (your post being the first hit):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_education
http://www.health.vic.gov.au/agedcare/downloads/wellforlife/ewb_resi_complete.pdf
https://www.education.tas.gov.au/documentcentre/Documents/Tas-Curriculum-K-10-Health-and-Wellbeing-Syllabus-and-Support.pdf
These all seem relevant.
The post isn’t complicated. It presents simple ideas. It’s not full of complicated jargon.
I think it’s good to have posts like this on LW.
I fully agree.
My comment about the obviousness was partly meant to highlight that it is seldom clear what is obvious and what isn’t.; esp. in hindsight.
Sometimes even seemingly trivial things have to be stated lest some taken for granted non-fact bites you.
I think that this post has a certain quality, that unusual for LW.
I think ‘obvious’ is a word that not bad, but it’s not perfect for naming that quality. Do you have a better suggestion for naming that quality?
You may not have meant it, but I take this to be high praise. I’ve recently been trying to expand out of the thinking framework engendered by LW.
Perhaps, “clarificatory”, “definitional”, “retrospectively obvious”, “frameworking”?
Given that I wrote probably a dozen times in the last months on LW that we should speak more about basics, it’s praise.
I guess the reason I wrote that was people might say something like: “Well of course meta-capabilities are important. Duh.” But thanks for reminding me that the “obvious” might be valuable; or not be so “obvious” at all.
By the way, also thanks for the links. I made up the list myself. I will look into other references as well.
Given common cultural background, I’d imagine.