Registration:
- online lecture on May 23 from 7:30 pm to 9:30 pm.
- transfer €47 through PayPal (info@lavantgarde.be) or through wire transfer (BIC/Swift: KREDBEBBXXX, IBAN: BE54 7370 7190 1897; to the attention of House of the beloved vzw)
- send an email to inschrijven@lavantgarde.be.
- you’ll receive a zoom link shortly before the lecture.
WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE POLARIZATION IN THE DOMAIN OF HIGH COGNITIVE ABILITY?
🔹 The recent controversy surrounding the article in De Correspondent by Lianne Hoogeveen (also see this post) has drawn attention to an important confusion in our domain: a confusion between science, practice, and personal experience. Each of these three perspectives uses its own criteria for what is considered legitimate knowledge.
In brief:
👉 The SCIENTIFIC perspective (SP) aims for objective knowledge based on empirical observation, which can be generalized to a (sub)population and expressed in unambiguous language.
👉 The PRACTICAL perspective (PP) pragmatically focuses on finding effective solutions through cycles of action-observation-evaluation, expressed in concrete language.
👉 The EXPERIENCE-BASED perspective (EP) seeks self-insight through (subjective) introspection that is unique to each individual and often expressed in metaphorical or poetic language.
🔹 The discussion seems to focus on content, but isn’t it rather an epistemological confusion? The different paradigms use different definitions of legitimate knowledge, attach different values to generalization, and pursue different goals.
👉 The SP strives for methodological accuracy and analytical sharpness, seeking cumulative knowledge.
👉 The PP seeks insights and solutions that actually work.
👉 The EP wants to be acknowledged in their uniqueness and seeks self-identification.
When we get entangled in these perspectives, it often leads to:
🔻 Poor science (based on anecdotes, vague language, and not generalizable).
🔻 Unusable solutions (inefficient, ineffective, irrelevant, unique to an individual, etc.).
🔻 Lukewarm self-expression (pseudo-scientific language trying to hide an extremely subjective experience or disguise the need for acceptance).
❔ How can we untangle this knot?
💡 By distinguishing the different perspectives, giving each its place in the domain where they excel, and delineating where a perspective should be cautious.
I want to take a first step together with you here with a theme that has been inviting dissection and discussion for years:
✨ DABROWSKI: DISSECTED AND REVIVED ✨
You are warmly welcome to this online lecture on May 23 from 7:30 pm to 9:30 pm.
We look forward to continuing this dialogue with you.