It can be more challenging to understand than to create.
When understanding, you adjust your understanding of a concept so it matches others' understanding of it. You keep testing and adjusting.
But when creating you can make whatever you want, whatever makes the most sense to you.
I think this is a possible criticism of bloom's taxonomy. That understanding is less passive than portrayed.
Saying this because Rob, the creator of Attitudinal Psyche (AP), has changed the theory yet again and is retyping everyone very differently.
It's easy for him to do whatever with his creation. But everything that other people have previously understood must now be thrown away, new frames of reference found, to adjust one's understanding and capture the new understanding.
1/4
In mindmaps, it's natural to see multiple backbones that can structure a given set of keywords. I think that's what's happening here, Rob is seeing another backbone. But instead of using the existing language to explain the new backbone, he's changing the language to fit the new backbone.
2/4
This raises the question of what should be kept constant. Physics keeps the speed of light constant. Which has a crazy effect because now time slows down at high speeds and stops in black holes.
A: How do we know that time has slowed down or stopped?
B: Because we compare it to a time that runs at a constant rate.
A: So time has not slowed down or stopped after all?
It is more intuitive to keep time constant. Even if you can fudge entire theories to keep the speed of light constant.
3/4
I hope Rob eventually finds *the* backbone. A robust language that can accommodate these multiple possible ways to structure his theory. Though I'm pessimistic that all we'll have from him is more fudged up reflections of an ephemeral constellation.
Is he still a 3L in his new theory? Because this is process as hell and I ain't got the patience for that shit.
4/4
Skiros