If I'm permitted a bikeshedding moment though, I'm not sure that 'meta-rationality' is the right term (though it is far better than 'post-rationality'). The type of thinking that is discussed isn't exactly ratiocinating (or reasoning) about rationality (the reasoning of the article might be described that way, but not it's subject per-se). Perhaps trans-rationality works better?
Also, it seems that the specific type of thinking demonstrated (especially to solve the puzzles) is — or at least bears a close relationship to — abductive reasoning, which isn't mentioned.
Also, the solution in footnote #20 isn't correct, the black shapes not only MUST separate the groups of white shapes when joined, they MAY terminate any dangling end of a group as well.
If I'm permitted a bikeshedding moment though, I'm not sure that 'meta-rationality' is the right term (though it is far better than 'post-rationality'). The type of thinking that is discussed isn't exactly ratiocinating (or reasoning) about rationality (the reasoning of the article might be described that way, but not it's subject per-se). Perhaps trans-rationality works better?
Also, it seems that the specific type of thinking demonstrated (especially to solve the puzzles) is — or at least bears a close relationship to — abductive reasoning, which isn't mentioned.
Also, the solution in footnote #20 isn't correct, the black shapes not only MUST separate the groups of white shapes when joined, they MAY terminate any dangling end of a group as well.