While reading Meaningness, more of a description of the kinds of things I want in thinking became clear.
I want an honor culture, generalized to include questions of fact.
It seems to me that anything which we could interact with but do not describe is completely constrained to System 1 thinking. In order to reason explicitly, which is to say use System 2, we need an explicit description.
The things we do a really crappy job reasoning about, but which are of the highest importance, are people and groups. By “people” I mean specifically ourselves: we need to have a description of ourselves. We also need to have a description of groups. With these two descriptions we can reason explicitly about our membership in a group: whether to join, whether to leave, how to succeed within one, how to improve it, etc.
I strongly suspect the “center of gravity” for civilization is found within groups.
Specifically, the kind of group I am concerned with is the unit of action.
While reading Meaningness, more of a description of the kinds of things I want in thinking became clear.
I want an honor culture, generalized to include questions of fact.
It seems to me that anything which we could interact with but do not describe is completely constrained to System 1 thinking. In order to reason explicitly, which is to say use System 2, we need an explicit description.
The things we do a really crappy job reasoning about, but which are of the highest importance, are people and groups. By “people” I mean specifically ourselves: we need to have a description of ourselves. We also need to have a description of groups. With these two descriptions we can reason explicitly about our membership in a group: whether to join, whether to leave, how to succeed within one, how to improve it, etc.
I strongly suspect the “center of gravity” for civilization is found within groups.
Specifically, the kind of group I am concerned with is the unit of action.