Sorry, I should learn not to post on mobile—I end up not thinking or explaining myself well. It was simply wrong to say “not real”.
There are three different aspects to two levels of phenomenon we’re talking about, some of which are similar, but not all of which have the same focus as the frog parable, which -is- false.
The levels are about the state of things vs changes in the state and predictions of future state.
The aspects are more important. There’s noticing something, fixing something, and assigning blame for something. The frog example and “attack” framing send to be mostly about blame and responsibility.
The true behavior of frogs in heated pots (they jump out) shows that noticing and fixing isn’t a problem. The other examples are pretty commonly noticed (recently, at least), but not well-understood enough to know how to address. It may be that blame plays a part in addressing some. But I suspect it’s not the most important part.
Sorry, I should learn not to post on mobile—I end up not thinking or explaining myself well. It was simply wrong to say “not real”.
There are three different aspects to two levels of phenomenon we’re talking about, some of which are similar, but not all of which have the same focus as the frog parable, which -is- false.
The levels are about the state of things vs changes in the state and predictions of future state.
The aspects are more important. There’s noticing something, fixing something, and assigning blame for something. The frog example and “attack” framing send to be mostly about blame and responsibility.
The true behavior of frogs in heated pots (they jump out) shows that noticing and fixing isn’t a problem. The other examples are pretty commonly noticed (recently, at least), but not well-understood enough to know how to address. It may be that blame plays a part in addressing some. But I suspect it’s not the most important part.