itch.io

I was thinking about this again. I'm not sure you can heal an egregore before you can make somewhat discrete egregores. In psychology, medicine and even politics, its usually not too arbitrary where to draw lines. Before you can define an egregore, I don't think you can really think about healing them. It will be too easy to hack, because you aren't looking at the same thing. 

Imagine a world where education actually compounds. A child learns in a way that makes next year’s learning easier, sharper, deeper, and more self-correcting. Instead of schools producing students who can perform understanding on cue, they would produce people who can genuinely notice confusion, form real concepts, update, reason, and keep developing long after the test is over. The stakes are enormous. If schooling shapes the minds that go on to make up a society, then the question of what kinds of minds it cultivates is not just an educational question. It is a political, cultural, and civilizational one.

The concrete aim of this project is to identify and begin publicly mapping the habits of mind that make learning compound over time. I call these Accelerant Habits: habits that improve the conditions of future learning itself. Literacy and numeracy are obvious examples, but I suspect there are others—especially in understanding, metacognition, and epistemology—that matter far more than current systems recognize. The goal is not to pretend I already know the answer, but to found a more serious inquiry around the question.

This document lays out the problem, the hypothesis, and the first steps. It argues that most educational interventions fade because they improve performance without changing the learner’s operating system. It explains how schools are structurally rewarded for producing the appearance of learning rather than the reality of it. And it sketches the first phase of the project: building a candidate map of accelerant habits, synthesizing relevant literature, publishing a public framing of the question, and articulating my own account strongly enough to attract sharper collaborators, criticism, and eventually better research.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Es0wxDZzyG6nOo3TtF_jEpB4gVlUI_Y4EgLK4w97AAg/...

That makes sense. 

I can imagine a free limited version that runs on a specific semantic space, and a paid for that let's you upload and choose from a broader library

I think I fixed it. Is there something missing here, or any info that feels superfluous?

I'm also extremely curious how this would have implications for your work? what are some of the things you'd want to use it for?

yes, I'll think about the stakes and add it. thanks!
there's a few angles here. and the fact that this is recursive--so it could serve as some governer (in cyberntic talk) or some crazy loop that creates new attractors. 

BUT it could also prove that language does not shape reality! or at least not in such a straightforward way. thats also a possible upshot of this tool. it allows you to experiment and falsify certain perceptions on the language-reality interaction.

feedback focusing on the things that got me confused. the idea makes a lot of sense, and I think will be very beneficial. I think many people do have this understanding of a healthy vs sick egregore; but they've put it together each from a different eclectic group of sources, which often makes communication and research very difficult. your proposal, if I understand correctly, will make it feasible to actually do collective research, communicate it, and make progress in this field. 

• I'm a little unclear on why "Write the founding translation documents — "connecting current psychological schools and treatments to the new paradigm, showing how CBT, psychoanalysis, behavioral, humanistic, and systems approaches each capture part of the picture and how the framework unifies them" is so important. Your list of "What's in place" feels much  more like what needs to be connected. (I'd add aspects of sociology, anthropology,  political science/philosophy and educational design as being part of that list too.)
• I'm also unsure why your practitioner looks the way they do. They sound awesome and hyper-virtuous, but I don't see why that's the bar. Isn't it enough to understand the mechanisms of how societies are healthy and sick and know how to pull the lever? I'm not sure this is more like a psychologist than a wise legislator. If anything the skills involved will probably need to be much more intellectually rigorous. The researchers might need some of these virtues (plus super-duper-communication + formalization skills) in order to create the curriculum from which practitioners emerge. Kind of how you need to be a certain kind of mind to discover electricity, and a different kind to be an electrical engineer.
• Back to the first point, I'm unsure why psychology is your main analogy. It seems to me it is because your next steps have quite a lot to do with psychology as a field needing to be upgraded to health of societies. My guess is that politicians, priests, and other people in power over organizations are actually the target audience. I would want to teach them what is going on, as they already have some levers in their hand. Individual psychs typically don't as far as I know. Even Rogerian T-groups and the like aren't really a society to be healed. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LmXTo-pfzxQor4GkVPp31QcroK-WD04wDQ-jhSqBahc/...

Link to doc