Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Where are you and where are you going?
daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

I have not completely convinced myself that my simple pattern matching between the functions and developmental stages fits reality. So, I will elaborate a bit and pose open questions to myself and others.

First-order
All functions are competing for primacy. I do have much anecdotal baby data, so I am not quite sure if this is true. For those who have had kids, how different can babies under a year or two be? Seems like they would be experimenting with all the functions in a very crude way. I do know that babies vary in how quickly they progress to the second-order.

Second-order
A single dominate function. This is when kids become little narcissists with a very one-faced ego. Depending on whether this ego faces outwards or inwards will largely determine how easy it is to identify. Chill kids are introverted but which functions they use is a bit more challenging to figure out until they develop an extroverted function. Based on what my parents said, I would rarely fuss about anything and just looked confused/amazed all the time.

Se: Always moving
Ne: Always pushing boundaries
Te: Interested by complicated or messy looking things? C'mon Ego, what where you like as a young kid?
Fe: Interested in peoples facial expressions?

Perhaps the judgement functions must be developed later?

Third-order
One dominate strategy for dealing with the external and another for the internal. Half of each axis is unconscious. Decisions and perceptions can be made/expressed but their processing/determination goes unseen by the self.
Last edited by daylen on Fri May 29, 2020 8:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 7:04 pm
Although, it is hard to imagine anybody at the Santa Fe institute wrapping their face in plastic wrap and smashing a computer mouse underfoot while yielding a dissecting knife they stole from the cupboard with a broken lock which I attempted to secure with multiple bungee cords.
..and I thought high-school was bad.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

Visited my second cousin and her husband Saturday and stayed the night in their custom shipping container home. I should have taken pictures and shared them here; maybe I will next time. Anyway, it is minimal and stylish, and I bet many here would like it.

My cousin is a 27-ish ISFP, and her husband is a 30-ish ESFP. I thought she might be an INFJ at one point, but now that I have talked to her more this is clearly not the case. They have been friends since high school if I recall correctly and have been married a year or so. This is interesting because it aligns with my relationship model (which I have not elaborated much on here). Being at the third-order they both primarily use Fi and Se. This explains why they seem to have less communication issues than many other couples I have met. There were several other interesting observations I made so this is an excellent case study that will continue into the future. I would like to work on subtly strengthening their Ni to help them with fourth-order transitioning.

I have also been studying my ISFJ+ESFJ grandparents for a while who also fit the pattern above. I suspect that many of the most stable couples (especially the ones that start around high school) are types which share the first two functions. Couples in the same quadra with reversed functions (e.g. INTP and ESFJ) would communicate better at the fourth-order.

Now that I think a little harder, I also know another ISFP+ESFP couple that has been together since high school.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6296
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Introverts can be fussy as babies, because they do not yet have personal control over level of stimulation, inclusive of stimuli generated by their own body which they have not yet integrated as “self.”

Extroverts can also seem anti-social as babies, because they can experience stranger anxiety more powerfully than an introverted baby who is less interested in human faces at all.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

I have also noticed personally that speaking with people in gamma quadra is usually more interesting since they share none of the first four functions with me. This keeps me on my toes and exercises my communication skills. Since my mom is in gamma quadra, I have had a lot of practice and this makes communicating with people in other quadras easier. Also, have had a few opportunities recently to communicate with younger humans (teenage SFJ's for instance). Liberal/conservative, young/old, masculine/feminine, high-IQ/low-IQ .. I can have a positive-sum conversation with all of them. My group (3+ people) communication skills could improve, though.

@7w5 That makes sense. An introverted baby would not yet have a fully formed introverted function that can handle variation in external stimuli. An extroverted baby would not yet have a fully formed extroverted function that can handle variation in internal anxiety. Both would loose control of that function when subjected to a certain degree of external/internal variation. So, a baby is continuously deconstructing and reconstructing a single function until it reaches enough stability to be subjected onto the external/internal stimuli/anxiety (i.e. second-order narcissism).

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 12753
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by jacob »

daylen wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:14 am
Couples in the same quadra with reversed functions (e.g. INTP and ESFJ) would communicate better at the fourth-order.
Technically, wouldn't anyone type communicate better with anyone other type at the fourth order? K4 requires, I say with a modicum of conviction, the sufficient development of tertiary and inferior functions to operate/play/understand different roles in different contexts. Lower orders mainly operate from their dominant and auxiliary function trying to understand/relate others in the framework of whatever those functions are. Thus only at the fourth order would one be able to consciously (deliberately) be able to empathetically relate to one's reverse.

The idea is that K2 identifies only with their dominant+auxiliary functions both when it comes to the self and others. K3 recognizes and adds the auxiliary function allowing them to grok other frameworks. K4 ditto the inferior function. K5 adds the shadow side as well. Hence, the tendency for K2-NTs to see all human behavior (including others) as a system of logic ("Look mom, I'm a cyborg!") that can be broken to various degrees ("You're wrong because you're being illogical"). The K3-NTs would add either an S or an F component to their arsenal getting access to a larger set of others (other types).

PS: Caveat - I've missed what you mean by quadra.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

@jacob

By quadra I mean types that share the first four functions (one perception and one judging axis). Here is where I got the idea (note that mbti and socionics differ in which type is which.. I am an INTj in their system): https://www.sociotype.com/

Yeah, I agree that any K4 would communicate better with any other type than K3. When I say communication I am also considering the ability to understand and relate to opposing principles, though. So, two K4's may have conflicting assumptions where each attempts to convince the other that their principles are superior (e.g. Jordan and Sam), but given enough time to identify and isolate each others principles they would accept that they are both using different yet equally coherent meaning-making systems. Therefore, relationships between quadras would be smoother at K5 where each party is willing to empathize wtih each other. Otherwise, two K4's in different quadras would accept their differences without attempting to reconcile them. This aligns with your last statement in the first paragraph applied to K5 (empathy with shadow).

Interesting, so you're saying the number of functions at each order is 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 8 as opposed to my original model of 0 -> 1 -> 2 -> 4 -> 8? I can see that as well. I'll do some Ti-Si validation and post a more thorough response.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 12753
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by jacob »

daylen wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:50 am
Interesting, so you're saying the number of functions at each order is 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 8 as opposed to my original model of 0 -> 1 -> 2 -> 4 -> 8? I can see that as well. I'll do some Ti-Si validation and post a more thorough response.
I didn't intend to stipulate anything quantitative. As far as functions are concerned, I think humans hold all of them to some degree (obviously 0.00% is also a degree :-P ). Type is identified by the relative experience (from usage) that a person has with their functions. K-maturity is identified by the absolute experience the person has with their functions---perhaps only counting functions beyond a given threshold.

This is mainly from my Mt Stupid perspective. I don't have sufficient knowledge of the underlying Jungian structure to know if there's an actual theory behind it. To me typing is largely descriptive / inference based, not normative / deductive.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

I was interpreting it as conscious usage, integration, and control/dominance as opposed to quantification, so I think we are more or less on the same page. The whole system breaks down if any of the functions are assumed not to exist [within a single mind] since they are all co-dependent.
Last edited by daylen on Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

More philosophically, the mind cannot use all modalities at once and still act/think decisively. Hence, the mind tends to decouple an 'ego' or conscious network that still remains partially coupled to a large unconscious network. Decisiveness is a convergent process from the unconscious, through the conscious, to the action/thought as expressed closer to the front of the brain (channeled through the more primitive systems when acted upon). Each function can be integrated or disintegrated with another function (forming an axis). Each axis and quadra can undergo a similar process. The same operations are working at several levels of abstraction.

It is very much like a population of organisms establishing precedence in a new territory with various ecosystems requiring slightly different niches. Harmonization or mating stability for the population across several niches is like the human development of multiple functions.
Last edited by daylen on Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:59 pm, edited 3 times in total.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

jacob wrote:
Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:59 am
I don't have sufficient knowledge of the underlying Jungian structure to know if there's an actual theory behind it. To me typing is largely descriptive / inference based, not normative / deductive.
Yeah, for me it is largely based on inference, but I also find it powerful enough to make basic deductions. There is a strong correspondence between [conscious] use of the first two functions and disuse of the PoLR function. There are several tests for this that can be employed. If it was entirely descriptive I would have became bored a long time ago. :)
Last edited by daylen on Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

Inference and deduction cannot be separated in at least one sense so they could be considered a false dichotomy (unless using some other separation criteria .. then turtles all the way down). The identification of any pattern requires unconscious pattern-matching using both, unless assuming that there are 'base' observations which do not fit any pattern (hello Se :P ).

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

In light of recent conversations, I think I have narrowed my own interpretation of the solution-space. :)

So, instead of writing for all K4 and above, perhaps a better allocation of my energy is to write for Fe-Ti users at K3 and above. I can help people in alpha and beta quadras constrain their possibilities without demanding them to do so. By presenting my own development of Ti with Si examples and Ni integration, I can convince others to indirectly implement the solution-space. Simultaneously, I can suggest alternative routes for others who do not fit my message (to ERE, permaculture, trade-school, etc.).

For immature Fe-Ti, life can be overwhelming in the sense it appears you could be just about anyone or do anything. When in reality, much of this is false hope, and although hope can be a good thing.. every good thing has limitations. This judging axes is a bit like being placed in the middle of a foreign country speaking a foreign language. In such a situation, using Fe cues, you quickly learn what should probably not be done and after a while you start to learn Ti reasons. Extrapolating to the global situation, many people feel lost in translation between meaning-making systems.

By teaching people how to understand and translate between these meaning-making systems, they will be better able to triangulate their own morality by eliminating what is infeasible across all/many such systems. This can be aided with historical/anecdotal examples (Si-Ne) or with the presentation of simple mechanisms that generalize into universal patterns (Se-Ni).

Obviously, this is not the only thing I am going to work on. The other part of the solution is learning the necessary skills, renaissance style.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

Never mind, scratch that. I have a better idea for what to write. Planning out the broad strokes now, but basically, I would like to present an ultra condense collection of heuristics and a brief guide to the 21st century.

0. Into
1. Universe: big bang, gravity, optics, entropy, GR, SM, QM, EM, CM, galaxies, stars, planets..
2. Earth: geological processes, climate, composition, resource distribution, geography..
3. Homo sapiens: phylogeny, genetics, anthropology, physiology..
4. Individual humans: degree and quality of agency, functions, axes, S/O, P/J, denotation/connotation(*), dialectics, types..
5. Collections of humans: partnerships, parents/children, bands, tribes, chiefdoms, states, institutions, initiations..
6. 21st century guide: A very crude sorting algorithm directing humans to sources on what to do and how to do it.

So, it would be like a meta-strategy. I have had an idea like this for a while forming in the back of my mind. The outline will almost certainty evolve over time.

(*) When crossed with P/J produces sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking. This is from the book "Motes and Beams" by Michael Pierce which I recommend for anyone interested in personality.
Last edited by daylen on Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:33 am, edited 12 times in total.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

I could also include optional "crude algorithm" boxes embedded into the text covering different forms of analysis. Such as.. cost-benefit, typing, goal-setting, event planning, geo-political, adaptation testing, psychotherapy, and so forth. This would appeal to Te users.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

Oh, and lots of historical references/examples for Si and lots of diagrams for Ni.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

I will spew out some ideas that have been brewing in my mind here which may or may not seem interrelated. Stay tuned to learn a novel classification for communication technologies, to uncover the mystery of consciousness, and to provide plausible answers to the question of whether or not we are in a simulation. All board the hype train. ***Disclaimer: The following thoughts may result in blurry ontological vision and long sleepless nights pondering the nature of reality. Reader discretion advised.***

Eh, that was probably a bit overkill, but who said philosophy cannot be fun?
Last edited by daylen on Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

Oh, I forgot(*) to mention that I am not a certified epistemologist and that if you experience any of the above symptoms you should speak your metaphysician immediately.

(*) ..really just an unscripted thought..

--------

If real philosophers with PhD's have not yet made a joke along these lines then they must take themselves too seriously.
Last edited by daylen on Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

Instrumentalism and Metaphysics

Presumably W7 is an agent that has a graph of interindependent nodes that can vary predictably with each other in a discrete-time space.

The space of W7 strategy combinations may have peaks and valleys corresponding to adaptiveness or stability. Each point in this space would be a graph of interindependent nodes corresponding to roles/strategies/frames for navigating reality with the property that nearby graphs can be morphed into each other with an addition/subtraction operator on their nodes. Graphs on peaks would be more likely to roll down into a valley than to roll back up onto a peak.

Perhaps one way to think of a W8 strategy(+) is that it deliberately searches this space for deeper valleys. Yet, since an agent cannot simultaneously occupy multiple points in this space, perhaps this is lifestyle suicide. Humans may not live long enough or may be too heavily constrained by the environment for this level to ever become stable.

(+) This presumes an ontological independence between all agents such that nodes and graphs within this space can be delineated based on some agreed-upon logic/metric.

Now, assuming that a human agent has associated themselves with a nearly sub-optimum in this super-strategy space, perhaps the modification of their current graph towards the optimum neighbor runs into marginal returns. At this point the agent would presumably approach a lower-bound on the attention required to remain in a converging($) neighborhood of this local optimum in this space.

($) Assuming perturbations are eliminated via a smooth ad hoc transformation.

Should an agent in this situation devote their remaining attention towards metaphysical considerations that could constrain the super-strategy space further and possibly make the transition to W8 feasible? In other words, should an agent ever attend to non-observable, non-testable hypotheses which may or may not have long-term instrumental value by shifting their probability priors?

For instance, the doomsday argument could alter your priors for when you expect humans to go extinct. Yet, this requires the self-sampling assumption (SSA) which can be nullified with the self-indication assumption (SIA). See Nick Bostrom's work for more details.

Alternatively, you could investigate the simulation argument. Attending to third option (i.e. the simulation hypothesis) could result in a more granular view of all the possible explanations for why our universe was simulated the way it is conditional on what we know about its physical parameters (i.e. physics).

To go down the rabbit hole a bit, imagine we are in a simulation. What might we be able to conclude/guess? First off, why would our simulators create a simulation they could not read from(&)? Our universe appears to follow static laws without any apparent anomalies(*), so perhaps they are not reading it or if they are then they are doing so without us noticing(%). What cannot be measured easily or perhaps not at all? How about surface fluctuations on the surface of a black hole and the causal processes associated with their variation? Hence, maybe the simulators are using blackholes as a way to read our simulation via gravity (i.e. waves/gravitons) and interpret it via the holographic principle in a way that does not significantly alter its time-evolution. Also, given the simplicity of our universe, it would seem pointless for our simulators to only care about its initial and final states.

(&) Think grey box machine learning algorithms or simulations where interpretation can be a challenge.

(*) At least not any that cannot apparently be resolved with known methods

(%) Observation entangled with instruments/measurement... uncertainty principle.. etc.

There is a lot more to say about this scenario, but I will spare the juicy stuff for now and redirect attention back towards the potential instrumental value for an agent within a simulation to contemplate its nature (i.e. meta-nature or metaphysics).

The [near-ish] future may be roughly separated into three possible paths: 1. Collapse 2. Dystopia 3. Technological Singularity

Using anthropics it may be reasonable for an agent to update their priors for these three scenarios and adjust their position in the super-strategy space accordingly. Alternatively they could find an agnostic strategy which is not dependent on any of these options. An interesting side note is that these three scenarios roughly map onto the simulation argument:

1. Nearly all civilizations collapse before producing simulations.
2. Nearly all civilizations are disincentivized from producing simulations.
3. Nearly all civilizations are in a simulation (i.e. simulation hypothesis).

There is more that can be said here and we will cover more of this territory momentarily; one dump at a time.
Last edited by daylen on Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:49 pm, edited 5 times in total.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

Metapromo

Have you recently encountered a parody that conflicted with your worldview? If so then Metapromo has the solution!

We pride ourselves in our ability to find and eliminate nefarious content in your feed of choice using our proprietary parsing and filtering algorithms! It's as easy as 1, 2, 3:

1. Answer some basic questions about your life goals and political views(*).
2. Allow us to access your computer and social media accounts.
3. We will get you squared away with one of our personalized virtual boxes which protect you from any and all ideological threats!

For a limited time, we are offering the Metapromo Bundle for 50% off in total if you sign up with two or more friends! Order now by NOT sending in your answers to 1 and 2 along with the equivalent of $100 in your cryptocurrency of choice to one of our dedicated wallet addresses because this is a parody.


(*) Metapromo is not responsible for any data leaked in relation to your answers on such questions.
Last edited by daylen on Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply