Hm, at risk of getting facial egg, how would you say it compares to my recent hierarchy of understanding, which got to +40, and gives a useful organization of epistemic states long discussed on this site?
Slightly different topic but your hierarchy of understanding is clear, easy to read and well integrated with cultural knowledge. (Also +41 now that I’ve read it.)
Well, I’d say clear, easy to read and well integrated with cultural knowledge makes good criteria for wiki inclusion. Do you think it is the kind of thing that would be useful to link to? That’s more or less what I use the wiki for. And I can imagine myself linking to your hierarchy at times.
Large parts of it are isomorphic—At least 3 of the levels seem to closely correspond with chain-, spoke-, and network-type mental models, which I (perhaps regrettably) didn’t go into here.
Hm, at risk of getting facial egg, how would you say it compares to my recent hierarchy of understanding, which got to +40, and gives a useful organization of epistemic states long discussed on this site?
Slightly different topic but your hierarchy of understanding is clear, easy to read and well integrated with cultural knowledge. (Also +41 now that I’ve read it.)
Thanks! But I meant, how does it compare in terms of worthiness to be included in the wiki in some capacity?
Well, I’d say clear, easy to read and well integrated with cultural knowledge makes good criteria for wiki inclusion. Do you think it is the kind of thing that would be useful to link to? That’s more or less what I use the wiki for. And I can imagine myself linking to your hierarchy at times.
(It was already added to the page Understanding.)
Large parts of it are isomorphic—At least 3 of the levels seem to closely correspond with chain-, spoke-, and network-type mental models, which I (perhaps regrettably) didn’t go into here.