Brendan, thanks as always. The one concern that comes to mind is that when you become actively aware of the complexity hierarchy you intentionally code switch and concretize to reach folks of less complexity. (I might tell a child that a wizard speaks differently to a mouse, a farmer and another wizard.)
The intentional code switching in itself signals complexity. Informed naivete falls in this category (I think) as the person passes from a complex framing to intentionally dwell in the simplification knowingly, but not ironically.
Yep, that's all true. Not an issue, though, provided you understand what you're measuring. I can crouch down to become smaller. Now I'm 3 feet instead of 6. We use the same measuring tape, though, to measure my height and don't say it's wrong because "it's not measuring my true height." It's just a ruler. If I'm 6 feet it can also measure that. Make sense? If you're downward assimilating to code switch, it's going to measure whatever that complexity is of that performance. If you're operating in your normal functional range, it can capture that. The problem is only when we think that the measure should capture "who you really are" or something. With the right data, we can get at that sort of thing more or less accurately, but we need measures to do so. This is the measure.
Data concern I would have is the capacity to intentionally code switch (change levels) shows disproportionately at the top end. To extend you analogy you'll find the tallest people stoping most frequently, so you'll bias your measures of tall people. Not easily solvable, just an interesting asymmetry in the methodology.
Brendan, thanks as always. The one concern that comes to mind is that when you become actively aware of the complexity hierarchy you intentionally code switch and concretize to reach folks of less complexity. (I might tell a child that a wizard speaks differently to a mouse, a farmer and another wizard.)
The intentional code switching in itself signals complexity. Informed naivete falls in this category (I think) as the person passes from a complex framing to intentionally dwell in the simplification knowingly, but not ironically.
Yep, that's all true. Not an issue, though, provided you understand what you're measuring. I can crouch down to become smaller. Now I'm 3 feet instead of 6. We use the same measuring tape, though, to measure my height and don't say it's wrong because "it's not measuring my true height." It's just a ruler. If I'm 6 feet it can also measure that. Make sense? If you're downward assimilating to code switch, it's going to measure whatever that complexity is of that performance. If you're operating in your normal functional range, it can capture that. The problem is only when we think that the measure should capture "who you really are" or something. With the right data, we can get at that sort of thing more or less accurately, but we need measures to do so. This is the measure.
Data concern I would have is the capacity to intentionally code switch (change levels) shows disproportionately at the top end. To extend you analogy you'll find the tallest people stoping most frequently, so you'll bias your measures of tall people. Not easily solvable, just an interesting asymmetry in the methodology.