Preregistering a disagreement with my MATS fellow Erez Abrams:
He thinks the right number of levels of agency is 2. I think that 2 is too large, and the right number of levels of agency is 1.
(This isn’t mean to make much sense to anyone else, but hopefully one of us will end up obviously right at some point, and will owe the other person a poem about the beauty of their conception of agency.)
There’s no right number of levels of agency, just like for most complex concepts. It’s not only continuous, but multidimensional.
Thinking in categories, when the territory is continuous, is the source of a pretty good fraction of the total amount of confusion and miscommunication.
Preregistering a disagreement with my MATS fellow Erez Abrams:
He thinks the right number of levels of agency is 2. I think that 2 is too large, and the right number of levels of agency is 1.
(This isn’t mean to make much sense to anyone else, but hopefully one of us will end up obviously right at some point, and will owe the other person a poem about the beauty of their conception of agency.)
Well then, here’s my cryptic pre-registered bet:
There’s no right number of levels of agency, just like for most complex concepts. It’s not only continuous, but multidimensional.
Thinking in categories, when the territory is continuous, is the source of a pretty good fraction of the total amount of confusion and miscommunication.
my pre-registered guess: understanding agency is an infinite endeavor