@064e8d4b 

Really appreciated! Especially given that this paper is not an easy read. The breakdown and the description of its relationship to p-factor (including the inclusion of a psyarxiv paper posted just yesterday by @2f27edb2 ++) is all really interesting and exceedingly helpful!

For anyone wanting more before the click:

The heart of the paper is the notion of “canalization.” The basic idea can be stated quite simply: it refers to how features of the mind, brain, or behavior become less able to change in a non-specific way.

Canalization serves here as a “powerful bridging construct” that connects many different ideas:
Entrenchment of a psychological phenotype
Dynamical attractors in dynamical systems 
Minimization of variational “free energy” (i.e., a quantitative, statistical score of surprise or uncertainty)
... 

 @8599d6ab @064e8d4b @2f27edb2 

I'm offering a simple sketch of canalization to clarify the well-rounded academic use of the term, the optimism it typically packs, and perhaps provide a little perspective on the suitability of applying the term to describe some forms of psychopathology.

https://media.mstdn.social/media_attachments/files/111/080/898/993/410/381/original/4d0c6169b73e52e5.jpg 

 @4ff6cf7b @064e8d4b @2f27edb2 
Thanks! I’m not sure I’m getting the subtext though. There’s the idea of canalization & there’s Waddington’s valleys - both ideas/metaphors that researchers have/are finding powerful beyond Waddington’s original proposals. Wrt suitability, are you pleased or displeased with these developments?