Related: Shell, Shield, Staff, Singularity Mindset. The difference seems to be that your Stage 3 remains in System 2, whereas my current take on the stages is:
Stage 1: bad intuitive model in System 1.
Stage 2: scaffold and practice a good analytical model in System 2.
Stage 3: push System 2 model back into System 1 so that it becomes a good intuitive model. Eventually the System 2 scaffolding itself is taken down.
This also aligns with my model of model-building. There is a related idea in mathematics about mathematicians going through pre-formal, formal and post-formal stages: They start out not using rigorous proofs and make a lot of mistakes because of it, then they learn how to use proofs to think rigorously, and ultimately matured mathematicians don’t usually need to think in rigorous proofs anymore, but instead think mostly based on intuitions, for which they can create rigorous proofs on-demand, if needed.
Yeah, I was just reading exactly about this on Terence Tao’s blog.
One problem I occasionally face in the world, is talking to people who are in post-formal stages when I am only pre-formal, but due to not noticing inferential gaps, treat me as though we’re both on the same level. Such conversations can be awkward. I usually use my skill of ‘not minding sounding stupid’ to gain advantage there.
Related: Shell, Shield, Staff, Singularity Mindset. The difference seems to be that your Stage 3 remains in System 2, whereas my current take on the stages is:
Stage 1: bad intuitive model in System 1.
Stage 2: scaffold and practice a good analytical model in System 2.
Stage 3: push System 2 model back into System 1 so that it becomes a good intuitive model. Eventually the System 2 scaffolding itself is taken down.
This also aligns with my model of model-building. There is a related idea in mathematics about mathematicians going through pre-formal, formal and post-formal stages: They start out not using rigorous proofs and make a lot of mistakes because of it, then they learn how to use proofs to think rigorously, and ultimately matured mathematicians don’t usually need to think in rigorous proofs anymore, but instead think mostly based on intuitions, for which they can create rigorous proofs on-demand, if needed.
Yeah, I was just reading exactly about this on Terence Tao’s blog.
One problem I occasionally face in the world, is talking to people who are in post-formal stages when I am only pre-formal, but due to not noticing inferential gaps, treat me as though we’re both on the same level. Such conversations can be awkward. I usually use my skill of ‘not minding sounding stupid’ to gain advantage there.