Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Where are you and where are you going?
Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by Riggerjack »

@ brute

I'm sorry, I suck at communicating. In reference to kegan and levels, Jacob has posted the video before, I had seen it, it all seemed clear and simple. So much so, that I just dismissed it. I tend to always be an edge case, so when I test out at the extremely desirable end (maybe 50/50, I am always at the top or bottom), I don't know if I am an outlier, or the test was designed to make me *feel like an outlier* (mensa, cough).
So, I just popped out the answer that would work for me. Let me try that better.

I just listened to part of immune to change, a later work of kegan. I have a better feel for his model, and it wasn't what I am looking for. Or at least I didn't find what I was looking for there.

But at level 4, one would have a thorough grasp of a system, and it's limitations. Think of how thoroughly you understand libertarian ideas, and the ease you have with applying it to any situation. But, having that understanding, you know there are areas where your system is less than ideal, and some where it is entirely irrelevant. Metaphorically, you have a hammer, and you know the difference between a nail, a ringed nail, and a screw. And you don't hammer screws.

As you start toward the next level, you will get familiar with other systems, independent of libertarian, and learn to apply them, and their limits. You will find your metaphorical screwdrivers.

When you have the whole tool bag full, and you know where to use the right tools, and where there IS no right tool, and you are looking at your hammer, and your screwdrivers, and start to think about what an impact driver would look like. That seems like what is described as level 5.

But the whole model is not very applicable to me, I seem to have missed level 3 entirely. So take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by Riggerjack »

brute simply MUST be right.
Yeah. I have noticed a pattern (now that I'm looking for it) among my friends. We all have a strong preference for definition. We want to talk about things, often not present, and sharing a definition makes this possible.

And it is implied in our communication, that more definition would be better. If concepts we're more clearly defined, we could communicate better. And among ourselves, this is true.

But when I watch n types, they are much more interested in ambiguity. In breaking definitions, to make their own uses of them. Until I read the SSC post about it, I never considered the good, logical reasons for wanting and using ambiguity.

So taking that backwards, how did we diverge? Where did I develope such a strong preference for definition and defined complexity of ideas, while everyone else followed a different path?

I think this goes back to late elementary school, and middle School. While I was playing D&D, and talking about game rules (I was a munchkin early); other kids were learning to use ambiguity to skirt around the rules. And learning to pass messages in public with their own codes. To communicate among themselves, while on the surface, communicating a different message to others.

Clarice quoted that great Scott Adams line, above, but I think the problem is deeper than that.

I think most geeks had very interesting distractions at this point in our lives, and we missed the games other kids were playing. By the time we realized that there WAS a game, it was because we were being declared the losers of the game, and the rules were ambiguous.

The reason I found kagen's model to not be what I was looking for, is I know how I think. I remember the limits of level 4, but I can't imagine how a level 3 can function as an adult. But I'm interested in what other people are thinking and how, in order to improve my own communication. Simply making a scale, and putting myself on the top is... counterproductive. And this is very common in scholarly approaches.

So what I am trying to reach for is what n types are thinking about. What they care about, and how they can hold these contradictions in their heads, and still function.

How can they say they think X, and when it is pointed out that X leads to Y, everytime; they can still support X, and condemn Y.

And I think it has something to do with this ambiguity/definition preference. I have a few ideas of how this could work.

Social signalling: n type doesn't really care about X or Y, merely that the right signals are given. When the group starts to change, preference for X or Y changes along with the goals of the n type, depending on how that n type perceives her place in the group, and potential changes to it.

Ambiguity: by simply avoiding defined, complex thoughts, the X leads to Y line of causal thinking is just underdeveloped. So me saying X leads to Y with certainty and examples, is no more likely to be accurate that the barista telling her to "have a great day!" (Which would certainly not make her any more blind to the truth than I am.)

And one of the key differences is in how we think we must be right. If a good, solid case can be made that I am wrong, I tend to correct my model, and go on with my day with a smile on my face. A great thing just happened.

But there are others who react quite differently. And I think that difference lies in how much we believe that truth is internal or external. If truth is external, and defined, getting a chance to more correctly align myself with it feels good. But if truth is something one holds inside oneself, everywhere the outside world is wrong, just feels more wrong. And someone making a solid case that one is wrong isn't a chance to realign and self correct, it is an attack on one's personal truth.

And holding truths inside, seems to be a function of this preference for ambiguity.

Or maybe I am wrong.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by ThisDinosaur »

Riggerjack wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:23 am
We all have a strong preference for definition. We want to talk about things, often not present, and sharing a definition makes this possible.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HA ... efinitions

There's a hypothesis that human language capacity evolved to support larger group sizes. The more individuals there are, the harder it is to keep track of who is an ally and who isn't. So we gossip. Listen to a group of women talking, or 24 hour news for that matter, and note how much of what is being said is discussion about previous conversations.

Some of us get a big old dopamine rush from talking shit, others get that rush from matching our definitions with those of others. "Does the map I drew look like the one you drew? Sweet! We can be a tribe!" Its just the way we're wired. Literally. Like, that circuit is connected to your mesolimbic pathway in just the right way such that gossip is for simpletons and philosophy is for eggheads. Case in point; I'm wired in such a way that the above explanation is satisfying to me.


Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by Riggerjack »

Its just the way we're wired. Literally. Like, that circuit is connected to your mesolimbic pathway in just the right way such that gossip is for simpletons and philosophy is for eggheads. Case in point; I'm wired in such a way that the above explanation is satisfying to me.
Yes, I agree.

The challenge is how to make philosophy "real" to "simpletons", and talking shit "real" to Eggheads. By real, I mean engaging enough to get those juices flowing and activate the hardwiring.

Premillennium, I don't think this was even possible, at scale. I'm trying to find a way, now. Because we have new tools, we have new possibilities.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by Riggerjack »

@ mister imperceptible

Gotta love Nietzsche. As my best friend put it, "that Mother Fcuker knew how to throw down!".

Each time I read a bit more, I learn a bit more.

I missed a lot, the first time through.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by Riggerjack »

Another way to look at this.

I can explain socialism to a 10 year old to a level enjoyed by most proponents of socialism. Then I can do the same with libertarian ideas. Then we could talk about the benefits of each, and weaknesses of each. It would still be a conversation with little complexity, but we could talk and both understand each other.

I think this is because the 10 year old still has loose wiring.

But I can't perform this simple task with a 30 year old socialist or libertarian. He has too many hardwired shortcuts installed. He discounts or skips past my input, because his truth is being attacked.

So, I am trying to find another way. I am tired of talking past people. I don't need them to know I am right. I need them to point out where I am wrong, in terms I can understand.

So right now, I am trying to find the limits of my terms of understanding.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I think this is because the 10 year old still has loose wiring.

But I can't perform this simple task with a 30 year old socialist or libertarian. He has too many hardwired shortcuts installed. He discounts or skips past my input, because his truth is being attacked
I think it has less to do with hard-wiring, and more to do with sunk costs. This is based on my frequent observation of adults making hard flips at mid-life or other life junctures, such as death of parent.

Another thing I have observed is that as we move through anything that can be modeled by Wheaton levels, there is a tendency to reject the perspective right below us, while simultaneously reintegrating aspects of the level 2 below. For simple example, a teenager reintegrates some of the hedonism of infancy, while rejecting the do-anything-for-gold-star-praise functioning of an 8 year old. So, the death of a parent can serve to either finally bring an end to the praise-seeking cycle, or it can also bring an end to the rebellion-cycle. So, an individual who took on mantle of communism in late adolescence in rebellion against capitalist-pig parent, might do hard revert at mid-life, if not self-aware.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by ThisDinosaur »

I suggest these two books:
Influence by Robert Cialdini, and Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss.

The first one is by a psychologist and is several years old (so its on very shaky scientific ground.) But one of the things it talks about is automated responses. When you talk to a 30 year old socialist, every word you say reminds them of something they've read or heard before as a potential comeback. This is the listening vs. waiting-for-your-turn-to-talk phenomenon. "That reminds me of this thing I wanna say now so shut up."

The second book is newer and is about negotiation. One of the things it says is that people love to be understood. If you can explain to someone their own position in a way they agree with, they feel heard. That's important. If you get them to say "that's right," then they know you were listening and not waiting-for-your-turn-to-talk. This establishes rapport, and you can proceed to dismantle their assumptions as someone who "gets it" instead of as an adversary.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

So, you are saying that it would generally be in an individual's self-interest to develop the skill of faking empathetic listening?

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by ThisDinosaur »

Well, I think that it would be, but that's not what I'm saying. For someone to listen to you, you first have to demonstrate that you've listened to them. In doing so, you might actually learn something from them. But even if you dont, effective communication is impossible if you're both just shouting talking points.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

So, for example, based on recent contentious conversation I had:

7WB5: So, you are saying that the reason you can't get an apartment in the Senior Plaza is because they moved the age requirement up, and the reason they moved the age requirements up is that all the Muslim immigrants bring over their parents in order to get them benefits from a system they never paid into, right?

Where would I go from there with the conversation?

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by Riggerjack »

"Well, I hadn't considered that. But I have a feeling about how my mom would feel about emigrating with me to go hang out in senior housing. It wouldn't happen. What makes you think that is what is happening here?"

Or, just bow out since no actual information is forthcoming...

While I may wish to be able to communicate better, there is no need to communicate. Most people are best left to themselves, I find.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by BRUTE »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:58 pm
as we move through anything that can be modeled by Wheaton levels, there is a tendency to reject the perspective right below us, while simultaneously reintegrating aspects of the level 2 below.
brute has noticed this as well. he thinks this is the concept of "chop wood, carry water" mentioned by DLj in various places.

for brute, the big one has been community, and even faith. brute went through a strong-aggressive-atheist phase and a pretty strong anti-nationalist phase, then into a more shrug-agnosticism phase, and is now surprisingly ok with both religious and nationalist/patriotic humans.

mostly because the religious and nationalist/patriotic humans he knows are quite pleasant. but also because even in a context of total freedom, brute has to do and believe something. he couldn't believe in religion or the nation state himself, but he can tell it makes many humans happy.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by jacob »

Riggerjack wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:19 am
But the whole model is not very applicable to me, I seem to have missed level 3 entirely. So take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.
Are you sure? Since Kegan is increasing the nuance of what it means to be an adult, you might just have moved through it a long time ago?

Like at age 17 or 22 or somesuch?

In the traditional model, we have three stages---child, adolescent/teenager, adult---that are delineated by age. In Kegan's framework, there are 5 stages: child(1), adolescent(2), adult1(3), adult2(4), adult3(5). The disturbing fact here is that maturity has been decoupled from age. Thus there are adults (people over age 19) that are still stuck in adolescence in terms of maturity (about 14% of the adult population). Add that most adults peak out at the adult1 stage and never progress.

I'm thinking that a) the video didn't quite do the theory justice; and b) you might not know what to look for or how to evaluate what a stage or a transition to the next stage looks like in practice?(*) Kegan is a dense writer, so it requires some thinking to grok it. I'm still working on it, but having finished The Evolving Self, I can recommend that as well. It covers each stage in detail...unfortunately paying a lot more detail to 2, 3, and 4 than 4.5 and 5 or beyond. Like with Wheaton levels, it's superhard to talk about where you are or where you haven't been yet.

(*) For example, in terms of a profession/vocation. If someone ask you what you do for a living and you say "I'm a soldier or a physicist", you're channeling Kegan3 answers. Doesn't mean that responding like a Kegan3 means you're Kegan3, but maybe at some point you thought like that... identifying with your profession. Your job is your identity. At Kegan4, your professions transitions from being the subject to being an object. You're no longer a soldier. Rather, you have a career in soldiering. The career becomes the object---it exists outside of you. You can make plans for your career. I'm going to do this or that and advance in the ranks. At Kegan4.5, you realize that there's more to your profession than advancing a career. Likely, you'd feel betrayed by the promises of the career as an expression of your profession. Wait what?! Is this [careerism] all there is to it [the vocation]? Rereading the ERE book with this understanding, chapters 1 describes Kegan2-Kegan4 and chapter 2 (the lock-in) is my catharsis for finally leaving Kegan4 for 4.5. Recall that I wrote the book right after going through a lot (a few years) of soul-searching about what my physics career was in terms of me/my identity.

So my point is .. after reading the two books now, I think I can identify at least a couple of transitions in my past self. There's the term "born old" ... this might cover those who move relatively rapidly through the early stages. Advancements likely runs along individual S-curves.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by Riggerjack »

Well, I didn't read kegan directly, I saw the video, it made sense. Then I listened to immune to change, which is a leadership development book, and feels like someone is trying to help people channel Gordon Gekko.

I am suspicious of any system that seems to put me at the top. Not because I don't feel like I belong there, but that it's very hard to tell from that point how much of my exceptional status is mine, and how much is that the system is testing for people like me. Academics think like me, and tend to focus on systems that put thinking as I do at the desirable end of the scale.

But like BRUTE, I am overly familiar with the "too smart for his own good" line of thought. I think so, myself, of myself and many of my friends. I don't need a model of how I think, I have one. I need a model of what other people are thinking, that works. Simply dismissing them as simple thinkers seems to be where kegan was going. Arrested development at stage 2-3.

Whereas I think their minds are very busy, and not terribly different from my own.

But their hardwiring is VERY different. Their reward systems (juice) are triggered differently than mine. They respond to the same stimuli very differently than I do. They connect dots, I don't see. In patterns I can't predict. That's not a simple mind. That is just a very different mind.

So what I am finding most helpful, has been basic "adulting" instructions, on social subjects, to see where my assumptions aren't accurate. And then going back to past situations, to see how they could be perceived differently.

It hasn't worked yet, but I'm finding lots of room for improvement in my assumptions. :oops:

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by Riggerjack »

As for level 3, it seems to indicate the time where I used social acceptance as a guide for development.

I don't think I have to argue very hard that that step didn't happen, to a group of people who have read my posts. It just didn't.

By the time I had social acceptance, I was in stage 4, and even then, it wasn't a guide, merely a side effect.

That's what I mean by saying the model doesn't seem to apply to me. I'm not saying its a problem with the model, I just don't fit.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by Riggerjack »

I just outed myself as a pretentious ass over at viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10096&p=172610#p172610
So I should probably try to fill in some details, where I can.

It turns out that some parts don't require any secrecy, and it's probably just lack of ability on my part, that is holding up progress. So let me, very slowly, try to get this out.

I have always been a dreamer. Dreaming of the homestead dream as shown in the Mother Earth News, circa 1980's. I want the self reliance and underground home. The isolation, the peace.

And when I came here, that was my plan. Get the land, build the home, live happily ever after, with DW who wants that, and a bunker. And I have been working on it.

My plan for the underground home is pretty well developed, but what I have learned over the years, is nothing is perfect the first time around. But the UG home is so resource intensive, that I will probably not be able to build a practice version, then earn enough to do it again, better.

But then it occurred to me that what I want, is not just my preferences, solidified. Other people like it too. Every time I tried to describe it, people called it a Hobbit home. Of course, a Hobbit home, as described by Tolkien is homey and comfortable. But in reality, would only be such to Tolkien himself (he was a WWI vet, from early 20th century UK. He was comfortable with conditions nobody would aspire to, today.)

Eventually, the idea of a Hobbit home vacation rental as a retirement business took hold. Then I could spend the money to make it as fantastic as I wanted, and use the income to build one for myself.

But, as I moved forward with the design, and started searching for points of failure, it occurred to me how radically different it would be. My design is very earthquake resistant. Because I plan on building it close the the Whidbey island fault. And flood resistant, because drainage is part of the design, and placement. And fire resistant, because nobody wants to be in an UG house that is burning. And wildfire resistant, etc.

Eventually, I started thinking about what would destroy the building. What I couldn't prevent. Since it is underground, most weatherization problems and erosion processes would be affecting the green roof, not the structure. I started looking at possible destructive forces to address. I looked at what archeological digs found, and didn't find. Started looking at bronze, and concrete. Worrying about thermal expansion, and protection of surfaces from UV. Blah, blah...

Eventually, I got down to plant and animal damage, tree control and impact damage from fallen trees, oxidization, fungi, bacteria, and of course, water.

Water is a big one. It needs control in solid, liquid and gaseous forms. From inside and out. Even from our exhalations. But mostly, that is standard engineering work.

But try as I might, I can't think of a way to build to withstand glaciers.

That probably sounds silly, but making an underground home in my head, that will withstand and endure whatever I can imagine, is one of my default centering methods. This is how I get through the day at work, at a job that requires so little of me.

And since I can't think of a way to withstand a glacier, I considered labeling it a specifically not glacier-proof.

And then I laughed at my own hubris. It's going to be a while before we see the return of the Continental Glacier. But it really put our design timescales in perspective for me.

The Green Gold Standard seems to be 7 generations. I own a house that is 50 years old. And another that is just over a century. And I started thinking about how much of each was still original, and why. Why they were built where they were, and how they were. How they could have been done better.

Because we don't think in long timelines. Almost ever. Not in choosing our careers, homes, materials, really just about anything. I was skirting around the idea of permanence.

And that is a strange thing, isn't it? We talk about sustainability, but even then, it's just extending short term thinking.

I want to change that. And I think I know how.

Part of the plan I can't talk about yet. But what I can, I will talk about, here.

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by daylen »

Entropy puts up a good fight; better have feedback, memory, and learning built into the system.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Beliefs, Preferences and Delusions

Post by Riggerjack »

We don't think in terms of permanence, because we are used to thinking of the world in terms of scarcity.

Scarcity is the basis of all our economic models. To the point, that we intentionally create scarcity.

Designed obsolescence. Fashion. Social signalling through conspicuous consumption. These are old models to deal with the abundance available to us. We needed another way to make people want to buy what we were capable of making.

As a result, the truly rich, really don't have very good stuff to buy. Sure, they can drive Veyrons, or MacLarens, and I can't. But that means I can drive a Prius, not need to stop for gas, or servicing, and my econobox signals that I have less than the rich guy. Who got the better car, though?

We don't talk about permanence, because it would be so expensive, nobody knows how to sell it. And it's so far outside the scope of what we know how to do, if someone knew how to sell it, nobody knows how to make it.

This is where my Permanence Project comes in. I originally intended this to be phase 3 of my retirement project, using funding and connections from phases 1&2 to get it up and going, and then to launch a small scale demonstration, and reward participants with a chance to come out and build it with me.

But honestly, I am now not so sure that would be necessary. I think there might be enough interest, just in the idea. So here is what I am thinking:

A Wikipedia type of project, dedicated to the concept of permanence, in all aspects of life. Something that would allow people to get their ideas out in the world, and compare and contrast. A way of curating the results.

What would a permanent house look like? I have my idea. The earthship people theirs. Theirs is cheaper, easier, and works in warm enough areas. I am not interested in cheaper. But I am interested in better. Defining the ways an earthship is better than a Hobbit home in an apples to apples way, is critical to someone who has to make that choice.

And now you are thinking I am reworking the permies site. Not at all. If you can wade through the magical thinking over there, there are some fantastic ideas.

But permies is for people who want to go out and do it. It is configured to be DIY, for people like us. But people like us, the EREers, the permies, etc, are not the problem. As is made clear every time an environmental thread comes up. It's the masses. The masses who want Veyrons, or whatever the status item is.

The permanence project is about the Best Solution, price be damned. Because we can afford it, or at least, a fraction of one percent can. And if we can get the details hammered out, and demonstrate that it actually is far better, the money will appear.

How many times has Jacob complained about more money than he needs? Keep saving, Jacob. The thread about the post Apocalyptic thechnocrats, was about this problem. Rich people can't buy an escape pod, regardless of resources. We need to design one for them. Because if we can design it, and demonstrate it, they will buy it. Once it is a product, it can be improved, and then it will be cheaper. Until it becomes something within the range of possibilities for the 9.9%. Then the desire for social signalling will do the rest.

This was supposed to be a big, expensive, message, that came after phases 1&2, (that I still can't talk about) and a precursor to phase 4, the Utopia Launchpad, that would allow for the product improvement phase of making permanence pleasant, resilient, and fun. But since I started talking about it, I thought I should flesh it out, a little bit.


And on a completely different track, does anyone have a good contact at YCombinstor? I would like to pitch them something, but not along their current lines of business. I don't want to get lost in a gatekeeper's filters.

Post Reply