9 Comments

The core is the core is the core.

Expand full comment

Oops. It's actually the other way around to what I said above. You're quite right Douglas, sorry Stephen.

You can indeed match up construal theory to what Robin is saying, but basically:

overt=farcovert=near

(just switch my references to 'covert' and 'overt' in my above post).

Expand full comment

No, it's pretty clear that 'overt' is near.

Covert is concerned with appearances/social reality/communication I(Gryffindor, Hufflepuff), so it's far.

Overt is concerned with plotting and getting tasks done (Slytherin/Ravenclaw) so it's near.

Just stick to 'Harry Potter' to work all this stuff out and you won't go wrong ;)

Expand full comment

The question is whether construal level theory implies this alignment. You wrote, "If the human mind is split to parts that manage overt appearances, and parts that manage covert strategies."

Appearances are near and strategies are far (certainly): strategies are both more abstract and more future-oriented than appearances.

Expand full comment

If anything, you usually say that near is covert.

Expand full comment

Would you describe the emergence of higher order thinking through simultanization of left and right hemisphere functions? Like a parallel coupling of brain functions with emergent qualia over time and in time.

Expand full comment

I never said overt is near, and this post says nothing about near-far.

Expand full comment

Near-far is great like that. You can come up with arguments to make just about anything seem either near or far, depending on what you want it to be today.

Expand full comment

Left is overt; right is covert. Overt is near; covert is far. So, left is near; right is far.

But near is concrete; far is abstract. The right hemisphere engages in concrete, spatial perception, whereas the left hemisphere in abstract, propositional reasoning. So, right is near; left is far.

Expand full comment