The data of the past is congruent with the current psychological trends that face the education system of today. Developmentalists have charted how children construct and revise intuitive theories. In turn, a variety of theories have developed because of the greater use of statistical information that supports probabilistic contingencies that help to better inform us of causal models and their distinctive cognitive functions. These studies investigate the physical, psychological, and social domains. In the case of intuitive psychology, or "theory of mind," developmentalism has traced a progression from an early understanding of emotion and action to an understanding of intentions and simple aspects of perception, to an understanding of knowledge vs. ignorance, and finally to a representational and then an interpretive theory of mind.

The mechanisms by which life evolved—from chemical beginnings to cognizing human beings—are central to understanding the psychological basis of learning. We are the product of an evolutionary process and it is the mechanisms inherent in this process that offer the most probable explanations to how we think and learn.

Bada, & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism Learning Theory : A Paradigm for Teaching and Learning.

IPCC AR6 WG III chapter 5: Demand, services and social aspects of mitigation https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Freport.ipcc.ch%2Far6wg3%2Fpdf%2FIPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_Chapter05.pdf&group=world

Public Annotation of IPCC Report AR6 Climate Change 2022 Mitigation of Climate Change WGIII Chapter 5: Demand, Services and Social Aspects of Mitigation

NOTE: Permission given by one of the lead authors, Felix Creutzig to annotate with caveat that there may be minor changes in the final version.

This annotation explores the potential of mass mobilization of citizens and the commons to effect dramatic demand side reductions. It leverages the potential agency of the public to play a critical role in rapid decarbonization.

As per IPCC AR6 WGIII, Chapter 5 outlining for the first time, the enormous mitigation potential of social aspects of mitigation - such as behavioral change - can add up to 40 percent of mitigation. And also harkening back to Donella Meadows' leverage points that point out shifts in worldviews, paradigms and value systems are the most powerful leverage points in system change.

Stop Reset Go advocates humanity builds an open source, open access praxis for Deep Humanity, understand the depths of what it means to be a living and dying human being in the context of an entwined culture. Sharing best practices and constantly crowdsourcing the universal and salient aspects of our common humanity can help rapidly transform the inner space of each human INTERbeing, which can powerfully influence outer (social) transformation.

In IPCC AR6 WGIII Parlence, middle actors can mediate a community scale change, which becomes a force multiplier for individual change. Supercharging individual change is what can lead to significant scale of impact through many and many types of mesh interventions. The scale of such mesh interventions will have a "trickle up" effect to affect and accelerate the actions of top down actors.

This would be truly empowering as the current agency of the individual at the grassroots level is ineffectual.

Stop Reset Go (SRG) s a simple but powerful meme that is designed to be used by anyone to effect transition. When we recognize that something is harmful and needs to change, SRG can be invoked as a simple rule for transition. The colors of the traffic light are used as a mnemonic aid. If there is a problem with a human process, then STOP. think of an alternative way of achieving the same goal that does not bring about the harm (RESET). When the alternative has been trialed, tested and proven to work without causing more progress traps, then find a way to scale and implement the solution (GO).

SRG therefore becomes a simple mesh intervention that can be applied at all scales and dimensions. Its iterative and recursive use can be tracked in the Indyweb and interventions can be modeled by AI assistants that can analyze for potential unintended consequences through connections outside the focus area of the designer, and not normally explored by the designers. This augers a truly circular design methodology of the lowest potential impact.

IPCC AR6 WGIII Chapter 5: demand, services and social aspects of mitigation identifies that up to 45% of mitigation can result from a demand-side socialization strategy and collective action mobilization. This gives us tremendous power of impact to mobilize people. The low hanging fruit can be identified by comprehensive, ongoing, deep, global conversations with the greatest diversity of actors with a common vision collectively searching for the social tipping points, leverage points and idling resources and scaling massively thru the Indyweb as a cosmolocal network (what's light we share, what's heavy we produce locally).

Climate scientist and realist Professor Kevin Anderson has argued for many years that demand side changes are the only solutions that can be implemented rapidly enough to peak emissions and drop emissions rapidly in the short term (next few years), buying time for reneewable energy solutions to scale globally.

This is the key idea behind mobilizing an effective global, multi-stakeholder, bottom-up response. Minor operations implies an aggregate approach that has little impact, otherwise known colloquially as "tinkering at the edge". IPCC AR6, WGIII Chapter 5 articulates this same message and for the first time, outlines that demand side system changes can play a significant role in mitigation effectiveness against the hyperthreat. It must be collectively organized individual change that scales to community scales around the globe in order to have impact, leveraging what the IPCC call "middle actors".

An effective strategy must be very time sensitive to the short time window to peak emissions so must identify all leverage points, idling resources and social tipping points available to a global bottom-up mobilization.

Hein, G., Gamer, M., Gall, D., Gründahl, M., Domschke, K., Andreatta, M., Wieser, M. J., & Pauli, P. (2021). Social cognitive factors outweigh negative emotionality in predicting COVID-19 related safety behaviors. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5sbzy

Again, from the MicroResponse:

Thus there is a social aspect here as well, which is one of the ways that taste isrhetorical – it is a product of the dynamic relationship between the self and the world

In "The Letter Killeth" Frances Willard admonishes the acceptance of "truth" without acknowledging the social fictions at work in male-dominated exegesis:

We need women commentators to bring out the women's side of the book; we need the stereoscopic view of truth in general, which can only be had when woman's eye and man's together shall discern the perspective of the Bible's full-orbed revelation.

I do not at all impugn the good intention of the good men who have been our exegetes, and I bow humbly in the presence of their scholarship; but while they turn their linguistic telescopes on truth, I may be allowed to make a correction for the "personal equation" in the results which they espy.

It might be useful here to think about the "social aspects" of rhetoric as they were mentioned in the MicroResponse:

In other words, taste depends not only upon the senses, but also upon established standards. Thus there is a social aspect here as well, which is one of the ways that taste is rhetorical – it is a product of the dynamic relationship between the self and the world.

I think this procedural notion also resembles Rickert's ideas in "Rhetorical Prehistory and the Paleolithic"... For him, rhetoric is not something we do, but something we take part in. Hence his use of the term "rhetoricity."