The Education of Axel Heyst

Where are you and where are you going?
suomalainen
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by suomalainen »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:02 pm
Yeah, but you likely wouldn’t appreciate it if you told me your dog died, and I said “Shake it off. Fido only behaved like he loved you because you gave him kibble. Plus you were wasting a lot of money on vet bills.”
Well, shit, that explains me and my ex-wife.

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: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by jacob »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:02 pm
Yeah, but you likely wouldn’t appreciate it if you told me your dog died, and I said “Shake it off. Fido only behaved like he loved you because you gave him kibble. Plus you were wasting a lot of money on vet bills.”
You'd be surprised. From my perspective more thought went into that statement than the [customary?] "I'm so sorry".

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

“Suo” wrote: Well, shit, that explains me and my ex-wife.
“jacob” wrote: You'd be surprised
Lol- I shouldn’t be surprised. One thing I like about this forum is it is pretty much an emotional reactivity dead zone. But, there is also the possibility of emotional responsiveness. As in “ Shit. Fido was a great dog. I’ll miss seeing him bouncing around your backyard. They say a man’s life can be measured by the possibility of 7 dogs. (Hands you a cold beer over the fence) To the era of Fido!”

Also, what if I had said “Of course he’s dead. Any fool could see he was likely to dig under your fence and get himself run over in the road.”

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: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by jacob »

@7wannabe5
jacob wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:16 pm
You'd be surprised. From my perspective more thought went into that statement than the [customary?] "I'm so sorry".
Add: This is why translation is important to establish connections between the typological bubbles insofar the overlap is weak. That is, insofar such a connection is desired.

In many cases humans just follow scripts. Saying "I'm sorry" or "Condolences" when somebody dies. Saying "Congratulations" when someone gets pregnant. "Tortes and pears" when there's a mass shooting. Eric Berne catalogued a great number of more complicated scripts that humans act out in Games People Play. It's if not easy then at least doable to learn these scripts and play the required role saying the correct words. However, for deeper connections ...

The difference between sympathy and empathy is a matter of perspective. Sym- means sharing and it implies being on the same level. If I'm sympathetic "I'm similarly sad because I also loved your dog." Em- is an onto-relation which implies understanding. If I'm empathetic "I understand your perspective on losing your dog." (I lost my dog too, so I'm assuming here.)

This perspective may vary between F-land and T-land!

These perspectives may again vary from the script of repeating words from Hallmark cards.

I'll illustrate by revealing a secret. When people inform me they're pregnant, the emotions that light up my limbic system are despair, sadness, and anger from selling the next generation down a river in a world that's drying up while compounding the acceleration. We don't need to discuss this further. In fact, I make an effort to keep my mouth shut in these situations. I can't bring myself to repeat the "congratulations"-script. But it's also hard to empathize ("I guess you don't believe the predicament is real.") and pretty much impossible to sympathize with the parents (because the predicament is very real to me). My sympathy is with the next generation. There's no script for an appropriate social response (yet?). A couple of decades ago I learned how not to use funerals and pregnancies as a starting point for existential or world-strategy conversations.

Again, I fear this might start a discussion. I realize how psychoactive these words are, but that's the point. Different people, different perspectives, many simply hiding behind a script because "it's not worth it" or "because it's worth it" (e.g. to reach an egocentric goal).

There's a difference between sympathy, emphathy, following the script, ... and this depends on whether someone is living in F-land or T-land; or whether their sphere of concern is egocentric, sociocentric, ethnocentric, worldcentric, or kosmocentric.

To give another example. A Christian informing an Atheist that "they'll pray for them to [cure their cancer]". The Atheist will not understand it empathetically (in their world, there's no prayer power---the Christian demonstrates no empathetic understanding of the Atheist perspective either) but they might understand the sympathy ("I want to help you solve your problem in the way I know.) and the response should be a "thank you for including me in your prayers"---I can't empathize with you yet I do sympathize with your statement.

Anyhoo ... I think people fundamentally want to be seen and recognized for who they are. I think there's a big variation of who/what humans are. We're just a few 10000 year periods away from chimpanzee community behavior. An evolutionary blink of an eye.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:44 pm
Also, what if I had said “Of course he’s dead. Any fool could see he was likely to dig under your fence and get himself run over in the road.”
I've had this kind of discussion with DW many times. NT vs SJ. "[The dog has] never [run into the street] before you know." "Yes, but just because you've never broken your leg before, it doesn't mean it's unbreakable."

And this is why extreme NTs love models. Without them we'd constantly be putting our foot in our mouth wrt the rest of our fellow humans.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

Ego wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 9:50 am
If there was no models and no agenda, would it be easier? If the person approached a conversation with no need to impress, no need to convince, no need to entertain - just an interest in interaction for the sake of interaction - would the cognitive costs be less?

Better yet, what if the act of conversation is simply a quest to find a spark of serendipity?

In my opinion, one of the luxuries of early retirement is that we no longer operate in a world where every conversation has strict goals and objectives. Is the mental model approach an extension of the working world where the need to be effective, efficient and productive gets extended into every facet of life? Once trained in the commodification of conversation, is it possible to lose the ability to simply enjoy a meandering conversation?
Just to +1 what Scott said, I rarely have a conversation with an ulterior motive. My model-building is what allows me to have interactions just for the sake of interactions. If I didn't have my model-building capacity, I would be isolated and unable to connect with other human beings. My models are a source of delight for me, because they allow me to deeply connect with other people, 'see' and really listen to them, and get lost in what they have to say - including not just their words but their nonverbal communication, the cues as to their emotions, desires, fears, etc. I find it such a rich experience.

I get, though, how it can sound mechanistic, like I'm a walking algorithm, divorced from true and authentic human experience. That's not how I feel. I also get how it can sound like I mostly sit in a cell all day, "thinking". That also is not how my days go. [I also get that I made it sound like I'm anxious, fearful, alone, and melancholy all the time. I am not (now), my days are typically full of curious exploration, stoke, and bountiful social interactions. I think I'm done attempting to explain the inside of my head for now, though.

To paraphrase some stuff from Plotkin, a subpersonality, once understood and welcomed and loved, can become a source of great strength. My model-building processes evolved to keep me safe from childhood 'danger'... but now it's part of who I am. And I really like who I am. That doesn't mean I'm not constantly seeking to evolve, get better - going back a page or two to your original comment, I'm now really interested in how I can intentionally improve my relationship with serendipity - but the idea of stopping the model-building process just sounds like flipping the off switch. For one thing, no, I don't think I could stop my brain from thinking that way, and second... I *like* this aspect of my self. Wouldn't give it up for the world.
Last edited by AxelHeyst on Tue Jul 05, 2022 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

For a less abstract update: I'm now at a workaway on a permaculture project on the Isle of Skye, Scotland, and I think I finally found what I was looking for. If all continues to go well I'll stay here 2-3 months.

It's just the host, me, and another volunteer at the moment. More people will be coming and going.

The host is a mildly autistic ex-peace activist. He's organized, thoughtful, an excellent communicator, and has some incredible stories. He's grounded but not normal. The felt woo factor here is low, despite the fact that we hold heart-shaped rocks to say what we're grateful for before every meal.

The site is 16 acres 7 hectares on a peninsula. Someone else owned it since the 80s, he took the land over six years ago. There's a lot of stuff from the previous owner to fix, including the reputation of the place. In a sense, the place is being rebooted now.

I've only been here a week. I came on with the understanding that I'm a DIYer handyman sorta person, as there's a lot of stuff all over the place that needs fixing - some permanent, good fixes, some goodenough fixes to last until something can be redone proper at a later date. There's talk of taking on the installation of a aquaponics system, building a wind turbine, putting up a second poly tunnel, fixing up some sketchy electrics (from the previous owner), etc. So far I've just done some basic things to fix up a place that someone is coming to rent soon: replace a post for an awning that's falling down, redo the rotting piers under a cabin, demo some stuff in an old caravan, clear bracken, etc.

The place is non-militant vegan (we have duck eggs every once in a while; if someone wants to buy some butter for themselves or bring in roadkill it's fine; the host is planning on going fishing soon one of these days), and since the other volunteer is gluten free we're also mostly GF haha. We trade cooking. My lentil soup game is improving. Due to the efforts to repair the reputation of this place it's strictly no alcohol or drugs as well. I'm happy about all of this.

Image

Image

I've got my own small caravan to myself and plenty of time to write and think ( :| ). I've gotten back into zettelkasten and am really enjoying it. I'm working on another podcast episode now that I've got the privacy to record. I'm in a good place. I also am really looking forward to getting back home. I know what sorts of things I want to do once I get there and I'm excited to begin them. But since I've decided to sailhitch back, and not fly, it feels very far away. I've got to wait till December or so to take three weeks to sail to the Caribbean, and then from there on to S America or maybe up to the east coast or ? I'm not sure.
Last edited by AxelHeyst on Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Jin+Guice »

candide wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:10 pm
I would say if "just ask" isn't working, then there probably there is competition.

I think more information is needed. Are you just saying you know a lot of flakes? Even then, yeah. . . having a ton of social proof, up to having a cult would make it easier for them to show up to breakfast.
"Just ask" sounds like good advice, but how do I ask? Could I have better timing when I ask? What circumstances would influence the person who I'm asking to say "yes?" Which would influence them to say no? Under what circumstances am I likely to feel uncomfortable asking? When will asking directly be unlikely to induce a positive response?

When most people hear persuasion, I think they think that you're trying to turn someone from a "definite no" into a "definite yes" or exerting some kind of sadistic and total control over someone else's life. Most of it is about turning a "maybe" or an "I'm not sure" into a "yes" though.

When I first started reading about persuasion I thought it was going to be all about pressuring people and possibly blackmailing them. Most of it is about how you present yourself, controlling subconscious environmental and social cues and figuring out what the other person wants and how what you want is going to provide that for them.





@jacob:

I was prepared to say that I don't believe people who say they have no emotions. IIRC, there are multiple studies about people losing emotional capabilities and they become paralyzed to make decisions. Depression is also usually described psychologically as "the lack of feeling anything at all," with the result again often being paralysis of activity.

I have yet to meet a person who has escaped emotions so thoroughly that they are not influenced heavily by them. Someone who makes decisions only by rationality/ logic. I also think this is supported by Kahmen and Tversky's 2 system thinking as well as Haidt's "elephant and rider" analogy.

Your most recent post describes your position more clearly though. First you describe an emotional reaction you have and then talk about how it's not "on script."

This is more commensurate with my experience. Having an off script emotional reaction and learning it's not wise to share this reaction in a room full of SJs. I think the different personality types experience social and emotional situations differently.

I also think NTs benefit both in depth of experience and empathizing with others from deepening emotional and social understanding.

The dog death is the perfect situation. Logically, there is nothing you can do, the dog is dead, so isn't the logical response to stare blankly at the person? The only action that needs to be taken is considering the dog owner's feelings and knowing how to respond to that, which requires both thinking and feeling is all that matters.

prudentelo
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2022 8:55 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by prudentelo »

@Jin+Guice

Interesting to describe systemic study in improving daily persuasion.

Do you find your study made you better at getting results?

candide
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:25 pm
Location: red state America
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by candide »

@Jin+Guice

Are you really asking these questions out of needing help? I'm probably the wrong guy to ask[1], but if you wanted to start a new thread and maybe share case studies of your attempts, there are people who I bet would give some good ideas. But back to breakfast if these are earnest questions rather than just a hypothetical. . . Do you have some people's numbers? I would just text, but I think coffee is the easier ask, so I would do that. If the person can't. . .wait a week, ask again. If it goes dead then, wait a month. If that one fails, wait a year. If that one fails, give up.

I agree that the there are a bunch of variables. Two things 1) that's what makes an algorithm a lot harder to formulate. . . they proliferate for the different situations, social cues, etc 2) this is partly what I was trying to get at with Chris Alexander's "precision" stuff.

[1] I get basically all of my social interaction out of work and family. I could document how scarce my social interactions are during these summer months, if that would instruct or amuse.

candide
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:25 pm
Location: red state America
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by candide »

@Axel,

Your currents digs both look and sound as wonderful as some of the other environments and "work" conditions sounded terrible.

In a word, it sounds like you finally have some slack.

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: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by jacob »

Jin+Guice wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:21 pm
I have yet to meet a person who has escaped emotions so thoroughly that they are not influenced heavily by them. Someone who makes decisions only by rationality/ logic. I also think this is supported by Kahmen and Tversky's 2 system thinking as well as Haidt's "elephant and rider" analogy.

Your most recent post describes your position more clearly though. First you describe an emotional reaction you have and then talk about how it's not "on script."
I'd like to distinguish in terms of layers. We can disagree about what those layers are, but for the sake of conversation (I realize that I'm framing the discussion here ... but I also think this is based on physical reality which makes it harder to question), the bottom layer is organs within persons. Push those and sensation signals go to from the organs to the limbic system where they register as emotions(*).

(*) It could be argued that the signal runs in the other direction. For example, fear ~ sinking feeling in stomach, possibly literally losing your shit, adrenaline, sweat, and a bunch of other stuff, etc. all sensations associated with preparing the body for fight or flight. In reality the signals run both ways. Mental stress can cause organ damage by putting the body in the wrong state. What I'm arguing though is that basic emotions are felt around the body.

At all times, the body transits signals to the brain that is experienced as emotions (<- not the same as feelings) based on the state of the organs and sensations (what the eyes see, ears hear, ... ).

It's certainly possible to not act on or pay attention to these emotions. For example, someone in a state of flow might forget to eat because they're not paying attention to their hunger. It's also possible to override emotions and act against them---a courageous person still feels fear. Courage is the ability to override fear.

At this level I think most humans, with pathological exceptions, are more or less the same.

However, now comes the question what does one do with these emotions. This begins the next layer.

In F-land, the set of emotions translate into more complex "feelings" like feeling, for example, jealous, awkward, worried, grateful, confident, brave, ... These are all experiences people can feel.

The more developed one is in F-land, the greater the nuance in feelings and the greater the accuracy (self-awareness). E.g. a more mature person would realize they're feeling jealousy whereas a less mature person would simply be sad and angry, which are primitive (atomic) emotions. Greater experience also allows F to read feelings in other people by their facial expressions, body language, etc. and adapt accordingly. Even more experience and one can communicate is those terms (words, facial, and body language) and influence other people's feelings, the general feeling (sentiment) in a group, and so on.

But in T-land, while the emotions are still there, the feelings don't matter. Or perhaps, rather, the F might not develop to nearly the same level. E.g. one may read someone's face as being sad (about a decision say) but if they insist that [sadness] is "not a problem", T-logic will just accept that and plow ahead. (Or maybe conclude that the person is lying/hiding/... etc. and figure that in. Instead of feelings, T-land will focus on rules, laws, and cause-effect. This and this, therefore that. More mature T will focus on principles and even more mature T will recognize that different people have different laws and principles and perspectives and integrate those in the decision process as well.

Most people have a combination of both. But in extreme cases, a person might lean so much to one side that the other side is more or less ignored as "irrelevant".

An extreme F will bend logic and objective reality in order to achieve a certain feeling. After hearing a bullet proof case laid out, they'll refuse to accept the conclusion that X is guilty because X is "such a nice person" or "I really like X a lot". T gets thrown out the window as F overrides T.

An extreme T will ignore their own feelings (they still have emotions) to follow a certain chain of reasoning. They might drop a bomb on a village to prevent a deadly virus from spreading because the needs of the many (the world) outweighs the needs of the few (in the village) regardless of the amount of "sads"(*) this generates. F gets thrown out as T overrides F.

(*) Which is a very crude way of putting it. An evolved F would consider many more implications in terms of feelings, just as an evolved T would consider many more implications in terms of rules and consequences.

----

As such, I think there are layers that exist in a hierarchy. This concept of hierarchy is anathema to certain perspectives. To programmers the idea of layers would be obvious: hardware, o/s, software, apps, etc. Each layer interfaces with and abstracts from the previous layer. We refer to "butterflies in the stomach" as "being in love" rather than a "disturbance of the digestive system resulting from a difference in stomach acid".

At the hardware level, humans are more or less the same and the variation is small. For example, IIRC the range in raw mental speed between a moron and a genius is only a factor 4 or so.

At the o/s level, there's a T-based operating system and an F-based. Here the variation is large enough that people can't understand each other. You can't run mac software on windows machine. Yet people manage to function---because we've built a world that allows for both o/s's. People might set up their computers to run both. If they conflict they may have a method for resolving it, they may have a compartmentalized model (T for work, F for family), or they may simply be inconsistent.

At the app level, the human range is staggering. The "best" F will easily consider 100x as much emotional information (in themselves and others) than the "worst". Not just quantitatively but also in terms of qualitative complexity. Ditto T in their domain. IOW, the best "apps" are easily 100x better than the worst "apps".

----

Scripting is a mentally cheap way to avoid making T or F decisions on the fly. E.g. you can just say "congratulations" or "condolences" instead of trying to explain what you really think or feel. Many adopt scripting to such a degree that they literally stop thinking or feeling in favor of using the script. So they'll follow the script even if it leads to unpleasant emotions or irrational behavior. This drives an entire industry of couples-therapy :-P

Translation is a mentally expensive way to use T to emulate F or vice versa. It's a way to emulate the other O/S without the effort of installing it which would be more expensive still. The T-way to emulate F is to create models. E.g. jealousy translates into certain behavior and it is caused by certain behavior. An F would have a native understanding of jealousy, but pure T would have to build a function to emulate it. Add: Basically translation is an abstract way of empathizing when you can't sympathize.

In my case, I've focused my atomic model on MBTI stack functions ... so Si, Se, Ni, Ne, Ti, Te, Fe, Fi. I understand another person in terms of how developed they are in each of those stack functions. I can do this because I know how these functions work. Maybe compare to being familiar with the windows office suite where one app is spreadsheets, one is presentation, ... you can technically use the spreadsheet to write a novel but it's a terrible way to do it, so Si is usually focused on Si stuff. Apps gotta app!

The ranking of preferences [of app use] defines the person's type. This allows me to predict people's behavior in a way that is less wrong than if I simply assumed they were like me. Being NiTe, which is rather rare, I would not be able to have a deeper conversation than talking about the weather with an FeSi---and that's likely only so as long as we stick to the script. Knowing that "Ann" is FeSi means that I know she cares about traditions and celebrations---something I, being NiTe, literally don't give a shite about---and so I can do my best to accommodate her interests and perspectives. And thanks to the model, I can do this well enough to avoid causing an incident... as opposed to presuming that everybody in the room is NiTe and going "Look people, we should really end these pointless birthday celebrations because nobody cares about them".

OutOfTheBlue
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2022 9:59 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by OutOfTheBlue »

@Jacob, with the above in mind, it is a wonder (and truly admirable) that you chose Bill Plotkin's Nature and the Human Soul as suggested reading for the top of the new ERE Wheaton scale (level 10).

I don't know about emotion, but there is a heart beating in there ... Oh the humanity.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Jin+Guice »

@AH: That workaway sounds like a great fit for you and the place looks beautiful.

Not sure if you've WOOFFed or not, but the few wwooff's I've seen would die to have someone like you. It's mostly people who are interested in gardening (which is still great, but builders/ fixers end up being scarce). The WWOOFF I was living on in New Orleans could def use you.



@prudentelo: It's made a huge difference. However, I was starting from a massive deficit. I still feel like I'm behind the average person, but I'm also very critical of myself and try to excel at the things I work at. In a lot of the areas I want participate in, lacking social/ persuasive skills was holding me back. I was also lacking emotional intelligence, which I've been improving at the same time. For me, it was integral to improve both at the same time. The day I figured out I could intellectualize social and emotional intelligence, study and practice them, was a great day.

@candide: The breakfast question was hypothetical (I don't even eat breakfast), my questions about how to ask for what you want or to get someone to do something aren't hypothetical and I would like help, but I'm also not having a crisis, just trying to get better.

I haven't read Chris Alexander's stuff, but it's on the list.




@jacob: Thanks for explaining this by explaining your model. I don't have anything meaningful to contribute to the model. I'm not sure I ever will, but I need to think about it. This stuff is fascinating to me, so I'm really enjoying thinking about it.

My personal experience is that people with an undeveloped F often say they operate purely from T, but are are so out of touch with their F system they just don't notice it running in the background. These people are often primarily ruled by one emotion, anger or sadness, but always ascribe their actions a "logical" reason.

I'm personally suspicious anyone claims they can't benefit even a little by riding the train to F-land ;)

I think that both operating systems are running at the same time in all people and repressing one so far that the other is barely accessed results in some cognitive and emotional dissonance that operates subconsciously. My great experience is with those who run T at a high level and F at a near zero level, bc the opposite is terrifying and insufferable to me.

I think it's important to note that F and T can be the primary o/s for a person, but that system can remain undeveloped even though it is often used.

I also think that emotion is the primary driver for human action. It the most basic terms, people do things that make them feel (but not at the feelings level in your model) good and avoid things that make them feel bad. This is not the pure limbic system respond of "I am hungry, so I eat" but it's a more complicated response of "I am hungry, but I know that in this culture dinner is served in a few hours, so I will be hungry for a few hours, which I know also likely increases lifespan." The person who has the latter thought still feels good bc they don't eat, even though they also feel hunger, which in most people is bad. Hunger may slowly be reframed by the mind to become a sensation that triggers a "good feeling" and in this way the information is retransmitted back down to the limbic/ subconscious level.

I'm also curious as to why a pure or nearly pure T operate cares about other people? Or is the assumption that caring about other people is wired at the emotional hardware level we all have?

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: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by jacob »

OutOfTheBlue wrote:
Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:01 am
@Jacob, with the above in mind, it is a wonder (and truly admirable) that you chose Bill Plotkin's Nature and the Human Soul as suggested reading for the top of the new ERE Wheaton scale (level 10).
There's really not a whole lot of references---this is the only one I know---that describes a framework that completely integrates the individual with society over an entire lifetime which is what I see WL10 as representing. (Note WL10 is still a placeholder for WL9+ ... the table might expand further upwards in v3.0 just like v1.0 expanded upwards.) Many who reach v2WL10 lose their grounding as they ascend into a state of blissheadedness where "everything is wonderful". Others then adopt this as a short cut (spiritual bypass) to avoid dealing with their present issues. In terms of publications this creates a lot of useless noise, which ends up gaslighting a lot of people like the "astrology precariat" and the "yoga bourgeoisie". I consider Plotkin an exception to this rule. Lots of explanations and little to no [quantum] woo. The fact that Plotkin's particular framework (nature-oriented, subpersonality framed) is somewhat incompatible with mine is immaterial. It's possible I just haven't grokked [his framework] yet ("it's me, not you").

OutOfTheBlue
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2022 9:59 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by OutOfTheBlue »

jacob wrote:
Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:36 am
There's really not a whole lot of references---this is the only one I know---that describes a framework that completely integrates the individual with society over an entire lifetime which is what I see WL10 as representing. (Note WL10 is still a placeholder for WL9+ ... the table might expand further upwards in v3.0 just like v1.0 expanded upwards.) Many who reach v2WL10 lose their grounding as they ascend into a state of blissheadedness where "everything is wonderful". Others then adopt this as a short cut (spiritual bypass) to avoid dealing with their present issues. In terms of publications this creates a lot of useless noise, which ends up gaslighting a lot of people like the "astrology precariat" and the "yoga bourgeoisie". I consider Plotkin an exception to this rule. Lots of explanations and little to no [quantum] woo. The fact that Plotkin's particular framework (nature-oriented, subpersonality framed) is somewhat incompatible with mine is immaterial. It's possible I just haven't grokked [his framework] yet ("it's me, not you").
Thanks for the reply and perspective, Jacob. I look forward to a v3 expansion of the table!

Having finished Nature and the Human Soul last week (now plunging in his three other books, Soulcraft, Wild Mind and last year's The Journey of Soul Initiation) and coming from a NiFe perspective (with a somewhat balanced, maybe 60% F 40% T ratio), this framework makes a lot of sense and fits in nicely within the ERE curriculum and "conspiracy" (as you put it in the thread on Daniel Quinn's Ishmael).

Another book, that builds upon Abraham Maslow's work (which was v1.0's WL8 placeholder recommended reading) and could also be seen as "describing a framework that [...] integrates the individual with society over an entire lifetime" is Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization (2020), by Scott Barry Kaufman. I intended to create a thread on it later (as I haven't finished my Maslow readings yet), but here you go!

While self-actualization is often thought of as a purely individual pursuit, Maslow believed that the full realization of potential requires a merging between self and the world. We don’t have to choose either self-development or self-sacrifice, but at the highest level of human potential we show a deep integration of both. Transcend reveals this level of human potential that connects us not only to our highest creative potential, but also to one another.

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: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by jacob »

Jin+Guice wrote:
Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:22 am
@jacob: Thanks for explaining this by explaining your model. I don't have anything meaningful to contribute to the model. I'm not sure I ever will, but I need to think about it. This stuff is fascinating to me, so I'm really enjoying thinking about it.

My personal experience is that people with an undeveloped F often say they operate purely from T, but are are so out of touch with their F system they just don't notice it running in the background. These people are often primarily ruled by one emotion, anger or sadness, but always ascribe their actions a "logical" reason.

[...]
The model as I presented it was not fully described---I have more to add---but the general gist/philosophy is one of constructivism where an individual builds their understanding based on inputs (sensations, emotions, ...) and then build understanding on top of that (feelings, thoughts, ...) and then additional understanding on top of that again (consensus, principles, ...) and again (unity, systems and paradigms).

It's useful to grade the social ability of the two OSs by Kegan levels (Kegan is a social grading tool that measures one's sphere of social concerns from personal survival to cosmological concerns---the majority are sociocentric and cares only as far as their in-group, standard herd mammal). While I agree that both systems are running at the same time, I don't think a given person has necessarily leveled them up to the same ability. For example, I might describe myself as T/F=4.5/2, which means that I'm capable of multiple perspectives when it comes to reasoning to the point where I can integrate them and project a consensus, yet when it comes to feeling, I know what my own feelings are (Kegan2) but I don't really care to change them to fit in with my in-group (Kegan3) or multiple in-groups (Kegan4). I'm also pretty bad when it comes to saying the right things to make people feel better. (On the flip side, I'm pretty good at giving advice that makes people make better choices.)
Due to the tilt (4.5 >> 2), I'm a solid T-preference in MBTI terms. From Kegan, I also know that I'm much above average in T-operations and below average in F-operations. It just is what it is. IOW, I'm best kept away from funerals, baby showers, parties, art museums, ice cream parlors, and the likes.

These are two dimensions.

There are three combinations. Low/low, low/high=high/low, and high/high. High/high is extremely rare. The majority of humans is around low/low or mid/low, e.g. 3/3 or 2.5/3 or 4/3, say.

If however, one side is rather high, it can be used to simulate the other side. F-Kegan5 is able to empathize with everybody and intuitively know what to say or do despite not knowing any codes of behavior or having done any analysis of the group environment. If they make a mistake they can sense and correct it immediately. This allows them to function like T-Kegan3, say.

T-Kegan5 has mental tables and profiles of anyone in the room. These are used to emulate F-Kegan3 despite not necessarily sympathizing with people. E.g. I simply don't have the experience and desire to fit in with a group, but I somewhat know what to say to be included ... or at least enough to avoid being excluded. Whereas T/F = 3/2 would be oblivous in terms of causing offense and thus quickly find himself written off by some people.

Obviously this is missing out on part of the total human experience. I feel about as sad about that as some might feel from not understanding G=8piT
Jin+Guice wrote:
Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:22 am
I'm also curious as to why a pure or nearly pure T operate cares about other people? Or is the assumption that caring about other people is wired at the emotional hardware level we all have?
I think this is a bit like asking incredulously how an atheist can be moral(?). An ethical system does not need to be based on caring. It can be based on basic respect for the integrity of individuals---and this can be extended to animals, trees, ... as well as whatever one doesn't really care about. One might add the "Golden Rule" (most cultures have something like this). Interesting, F-based caring seems to focus mostly on people who are nearby or related while dismissing people who are far away (sweat shop workers) and completely writing off future generations.

Unless you want to reduce to this to a question of "why these principles and not other principles?" The answer would be "because these work better". The counter would be "why do you care?" That I have no answer to.

guitarplayer
Posts: 1300
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:43 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by guitarplayer »

jacob wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:34 pm
Em- is an onto-relation which implies understanding. If I'm empathetic "I understand your perspective on losing your dog." (I lost my dog too, so I'm assuming here.)

[...]

To give another example. A Christian informing an Atheist that "they'll pray for them to [cure their cancer]". The Atheist will not understand it empathetically (in their world, there's no prayer power---the Christian demonstrates no empathetic understanding of the Atheist perspective either) but they might understand the sympathy ("I want to help you solve your problem in the way I know.) and the response should be a "thank you for including me in your prayers"---I can't empathize with you yet I do sympathize with your statement.
In psychology onto-relation goes by equifinality (wiki accounts only for the 'disease model' of psychology but same would go for positive psychology. See also kinship with systems theory). Also 'many roads lead to Rome'.

A side note: In terms of determinants of behaviour, equifinality is often paired with equipotentiality which seems more strictly to do with psychology; less/ir- relevant to the point made above.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Jin+Guice »

@jacob:

Thanks for furthering explaining the model. I am personally very interested in analytic models that use thinking to describe socializing and emotion (in my own model, which is not what I explore below, people are thinking, feeling, socializing, sensing and physical to different degrees) bc I am also primarily analytic/ thinking/ T.

I'm not sure the model addresses my fundamental question/ line of thinking. Let me restate it:

The conscious mind runs advanced T and F at the same time. The subconscious mind runs only F, at the limbic/ emotional (not feeling, how the terms are defined above) level.

Human action is ruled by keeping the subconscious mind happy, that is feeling positive emotions and avoiding negative emotions. What emotions are experienced as positive are subjective and can be changed. If someone starves themselves to death, they were able to either convert hunger to a positive emotional experience or override the hunger with another positive emotion.

F at the subconscious limbic level can be ignored by a conscious mind running either T or F. However, the subconscious mind will influence the conscious mind (working differently while hungry; the courageous person runs faster and fights harder bc of fear) at all times.

My hypothesis is that leaving either system undeveloped risks severing a critical internal channel that ties the conscious to the subconscious mind. Undeveloped T risks being almost totally ruled by emotion. At the extreme, the full nuance of emotion is felt, but behavior cannot be modified to any degree bc there are no analytic tools to guide decision making. At the other extreme the powerful decision making tools create a logically consistent framework with incomplete information bc emotions are experienced at the most basic level. Anger from jealousy, frustration, grief and betrayal are interpreted in roughly the same way.

I think at some level the interaction of T and F matters. It's probably going to be hard to be a great physicist if your mathematical ability is in the top 0.01%, but you read and write at a 5th grade level. It is perfectly possible that it is more desirable to develop the side one is more naturally inclined to the highest level, while only developing the other side to some minimum threshold to achieve the best results (I guess it also matters what the desired results are at some point). Employing my own experience, I've met a lot of very intelligent logical people who are very methodically and logically pursuing illogical goals, who's emotional and social self-awareness is very low and who hold themselves back from achieving stated goals by being unable to control occasional severe emotional outbursts.

I also think it's important to note that culture impacts emotional knowledge as much as it impacts intellectual knowledge. White collar culture pushes white collar education and blue collar culture pushes blue collar education. A lack of intellectual awareness means being biased towards a certain set of knowledge, a lack of emotional awareness means bias towards a certain set of feelings.




Rereading your posts above I'm not contradicting your model, only adding to it and focusing it in a specific way. I'm still interested in your commentary on what I wrote, if you have any.

I initially interpreted your comments about the dog and pregnancy to mean that since you are a T-guy, you can't possibly be expected to develop F to ever understand and relate to yourself or others through feelings. I realize from rereading, this isn't what you are saying, but that your thought-feeling interaction influences and redirects your limbic/ emotional response in a different direction than most, and that since T is more intuitive to you, you had to use T to be able to predict others T, F and limbic system responses.

ertyu
Posts: 2893
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by ertyu »

Jin+Guice wrote:
Sat Jul 09, 2022 2:27 pm
Undeveloped T risks being almost totally ruled by emotion. At the extreme, the full nuance of emotion is felt, but behavior cannot be modified to any degree bc there are no analytic tools to guide decision making.
From observtion, I am one of the few F-y Fs on the forum, and in my experience, this is incorrect. I agree that both T and F should be developed and that a person who doesn't develop both works with serious limitations (though Ts attempt to make up for the lack in F by developing overly elaborate analytical models). In my experience, however, T and F are not in relation to or in opposition to one another, they are for different things. "Not being ruled by emotion," where "ruled by emotion" is defined as unconscious reactivity, isn't achieved via a well-developed overriding T; rather, it is achieved by learning to hold the F in a certain kind of space. Holding the F in that space transmutes it from reactivity to wisdom. Meditative and contemplative practices aim to develop this process. A person with developed T is intelligent and knowledgeable, and fluent in the use of well-developed complex analytical systems. A person with developed F is wise. Both are necessary.

Interestingly, vipassana meditation points to intellectualizing the F as a common temptation that leads the practice astray. ETA: It seems to be a common trap for either end to use the tools of their more developed side to overcome the deficiencies in the less developed side. For a T, the pitfalls are easier to see when one considers how this process fails when an F attempts to compensate for an undeveloped T by pressing on the F: magical thinking, anti-vax, and conspiracies live there.

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: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by jacob »

@J+G -

[Your] structure sounds Freudian in which the conscious mind is influenced by buried unconscious thoughts and feelings that one is not aware of because it's been disconnected or buried by e.g. trauma. And so without a well-developed T and a well-developed F which may work in collaboration one will be unable to understand or change these buried thoughts and feelings and will therefore be involuntarily trapped/influenced by them [in their pursuit of happiness].

Do I understand that more or less correctly?

Here's another thought. In MBTI, the theory distinguishes between Fe and Fi, that is, introverted feeling and extroverted feeling. FWIW, Fi is third in the stack of an INTJ, Fe is 7th. Many years ago, I dabbled with EQ (emotional intelligence) tests. I was puzzled by the wildly varying results until I realized that some EQ tests focused on Fe and some focused on Fi.

A Fe test might ask what the socially appropriate response is to someone who tripped and started crying, emotional other-awareness. A Fi test might ask how one typically reacts to upsetting information, emotional self-awareness. I scored about 120 on the Fi-style EQ tests and about 80 on the Fe-style EQ tests. This is concordant with the MBTI predictions(*).

Fe-intelligence comes with its own goals and language just like Te-intelligence.

Everybody has probably seen the "it's not about the nail" video. This is classic T vs F. Initially the conversation happens at Kegan3 on both sides. Each try include the other person in the default mode of their [stereotypically exclusive] in-groups, T xor F respectively. In the T-world every problem has a fix; in the F-world everyone must be [emotionally] supported.

At one point in the video, there's a good example of using Te at Kegan3.5, which therefore takes a few seconds and doesn't happen spontaneously, to emulate the proper Fe-response: "That sounds ...[pausing to think] ... really hard". (Note the struggle with the cognitive dissonance.) It works, though. But then they bang heads and go right back to the default Kegan3.

These are two different languages. (I find it useful to think in those terms. There's native ability to different degrees that might be rated as 5th grader or college educated equivalent. Then there's the "foreign language". Some might be bilingual, but are they bilingual at the 9th grade level or the 15th grade.)

(*) An ENFJ will have Fe in the first position and will be highly developed in terms of paying attention to other people's emoting and saying the right things. (This to the point that more cynical types might perceive it as manipulative.) However with Ti in the fourth position their comprehension of logical arguments from others as well as their ability to form them one their own is weak. Thus prone to making self-contradictory decisions. There's nothing in the stack that doesn't loop around "other people" and as such they're basically only as smart as the group consensus. To put it crudely, to an ENFJ truth is what the majority have agreed to form a consensus on even if it is logically flawed. Such a person is immune to logical arguments. IOW, logic is used to rationalize the consensus ... not to check it for flaws.

Post Reply