AE's Journal Round 5 - Finding Freedom To

[jacob]

for me, one-on-one in-depth conversations with others provide this. i can engage intellectually with a topic and i get connectedness while being free from the demand for a solution or results because any issues or wonderings others might have are not my problems to solve. conversations are interesting and thought-provoking, but it's not me that's on the hook unless I deliberately decide to bring over some of that into my life.

@ertyu - Good point on 1:1 conversations. Those can be great for a mental break from work because they are so absorbing. I might try to find a way to include more of those in my life. Most of my socialization lately has been networking because I'm trying to find a group of people I truly like vs just tolerate, and networking is the opposite of fun. I'll see if I can convert more socialization into genuine downtime.

Depends on I/E skew. I find conversations mentally exhausting and it takes a lot to drag me into one. A one hour conversation and my mental energy for the rest of the day is pretty much gone.

[AnalyticalEngine]

That is a good point on the I/E split. I tend to lean toward introvert, which makes socializing more difficult when I'm burned out. An observation I've had while trying to socialize more is that what I'm seeking are social connections that can mirror my subjective experience because there is catharsis in turning your subjective experience into an intersubjective one. That's how one overcomes alienation. This is, of course, much harder the rarer your subjective experience is compared to the norm. I have found the more I have to translate into average for the sake of making a social interaction possible, the less fulfilling it is. This is also probably why people trying to shove you into a social role based on your appearance can be so alienating. What you're seeking with virtue friends is for people to understand your subjective reality, so having that disregarded in favor of the average tendency to enforce LifeScript can be difficult. Heck, I notice that even I try to socially enforce LifeScript in areas where I do live up to (I believe you might call this the "get off my lawn" effect). This all likely maps onto the Belonging step with Maslow's hierarchy, which I do think is harder to achieve the less normal you are.

What I've yet to really decide, however, is how much introversion is an innate characteristic of my cognition and how much of it is due to me very likely being in the wrong environment. If I'm seeking subjective understanding but constantly having to navigate situations where I do not have much in common with people, of course that's going to be draining. It's not hard to see how sitting in your room and making internet friends is preferable to going to the bar and having to wade through assumptions people make about you/sportsball/people's divorces, all of which you can't relate to at all. If society was full of people who were a lot more like me[1], would I be an introvert? I'm not sure.

What I'm trying to do now with my social situation is:
1. Actively seek out situations that are a better fit (I am coming to accept this means I need to move, maybe even out of the state).
2. Try to build a social circle out of this group of people so that I'm not constantly in networking mode, which is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
3. Now maybe interacting with this circle will fill energizing and not draining.

I'm still trying to decide if the key here is to just blatantly signal who I am and what I am looking for, thereby quickly filtering out people who aren't a good fit (Kegan4), or if I need to throw out all existing paradigms of social connectedness and build a new paradigm that enables me to interact with average people in a way that's somehow not soul crushing/exhausting/masking (Kegan5?).

[1] I'm pretty sure a society made out of people like me would collapse in about a week.

[zbigi]

What I've yet to really decide, however, is how much introversion is an innate characteristic of my cognition and how much of it is due to me very likely being in the wrong environment. If I'm seeking subjective understanding but constantly having to navigate situations where I do not have much in common with people, of course that's going to be draining. It's not hard to see how sitting in your room and making internet friends is preferable to going to the bar and having to wade through assumptions people make about you/sportsball/people's divorces, all of which you can't relate to at all. If society was full of people who were a lot more like me[1], would I be an introvert? I'm not sure.

It's a big reason why "smart" (quote unqoute) people are drawn to intellectual, high-skill jobs - ideally in academia. There's a high chance of finding people you will jibe with in there, much higher than in simpler jobs. Of course, remote work (for all its other benefits) kills all that.

[AnalyticalEngine]

@zbigi - That's a good point. Your comment makes me realize my issue is that I may be attempting to find some social circle devoid of any context. That is, it's very textbook salaryman socialization to go join some club or social event to meet people, but this format is going to necessarily confine you to the limits of that activity. I find this is actually a much bigger problem in high income areas than low income areas because most people are spending the majority of their time on work and family, so meeting up with people outside of work basically amounts to an hour conversation about nothing while spending money.

The number of adults my age without significant work or family obligations is pretty damned low, so most of my socialization is getting limited by the "spend money for insignificant leisure" environment of contemporary middle class society. I think I may need to rethink my approach here, although I'm not quite sure how. Certainly joining a social institution that attracts like minded people, like getting an in-person academia job, may be one approach to consider.

[ertyu]

how about a writers' retreat? im sure these come with their own set of BS but it might be interesting to spend a period of time with others who write professionally. some of them would have had the same problems to solve: free up max time by accumulating savings and minimizing consumerism and expenditures. there'll probably be many douchebags, but there is also a likelihood to discover like-minded people or at least to make inroads into understanding how the community works and where to find them

[jacob]

That is a good point on the I/E split. I tend to lean toward introvert, which makes socializing more difficult when I'm burned out. An observation I've had while trying to socialize more is that what I'm seeking are social connections that can mirror my subjective experience because there is catharsis in turning your subjective experience into an intersubjective one. That's how one overcomes alienation. This is, of course, much harder the rarer your subjective experience is compared to the norm. I have found the more I have to translate into average for the sake of making a social interaction possible, the less fulfilling it is. This is also probably why people trying to shove you into a social role based on your appearance can be so alienating. What you're seeking with virtue friends is for people to understand your subjective reality, so having that disregarded in favor of the average tendency to enforce LifeScript can be difficult. Heck, I notice that even I try to socially enforce LifeScript in areas where I do live up to (I believe you might call this the "get off my lawn" effect). This all likely maps onto the Belonging step with Maslow's hierarchy, which I do think is harder to achieve the less normal you are.

What I've yet to really decide, however, is how much introversion is an innate characteristic of my cognition and how much of it is due to me very likely being in the wrong environment. If I'm seeking subjective understanding but constantly having to navigate situations where I do not have much in common with people, of course that's going to be draining. It's not hard to see how sitting in your room and making internet friends is preferable to going to the bar and having to wade through assumptions people make about you/sportsball/people's divorces, all of which you can't relate to at all. If society was full of people who were a lot more like me[1], would I be an introvert? I'm not sure.

+10 to this.

I think most (all?) people ultimately want to be seen/heard/understood, if nothing then at least by one other human, IOW, to establish an intersubjective experience.

The difficulty of this depends on how rare your subjective experience is AND how difficult it is to translate between your subjective experience and someone else's subjective experience to establish that intersubjective connection.

The first is a matter of numbers and interests. It depends of what kind of consciousness that has been installed in you. Size, width, depth, direction, ... (IQ, MBTI, and MHC give a measure. Ideally, the Venn diagram overlaps all three!)

The second is a matter of translation. For introverts, the primary processing mode is always introverted and so communicating anything with anyone always requires "translation" from the raw output of the brain to the speech, typing, art, song, etc. IOW, the co-driver is in charge of dealing with the external world. Cf. an extravert where the actual driver deals with the external world. (Basically, extraverts just route their thinking through other people as it happens rather than after it happens.)

However, the mental load put on the co-driver definitely depends on how easy that translation is. The easier it is the more "fluent" the connection. This depends on the compatibility (overlap) between the consciousness of the sender and receiver respectively, but also on a) how well the sender speaks; AND b) how well the receiver listens.

(Nothing drives me up the wall like a lazy "receiver" who takes the position that I as the sender should do all the translation work to make it "short and easy" for their derpy ass to understand )

In practice this means that there's difference in charisma depending on the receiver(s). In the company of "normal people", I'm quiet and withdrawn. I simply have no interest and as such no developed skill in connecting with the usual insipid conversations (like who said what to whom) that normal people seem to enjoy. I practically treat people like furniture---I manage not to bump into them on my way out---and kinda hope they'll extend the same courtesy. Morning radio shows melt my brain. Conversely, at ERE meetups, I become social to the point of mingling and making sure to talk at least once to everyone. IOW, I can bump my "charisma" from a typical 6-7 to 13-14. Charisma, therefore, definitely does depend on the people around you. However, being "rare", I've kinda accepted that I'll never find "my people" beyond meeting them online.

[avalok]

(Nothing drives me up the wall like a lazy "receiver" who takes the position that I as the sender should do all the translation work to make it "short and easy" for their derpy ass to understand )

Even just requiring to explain further a part of each point you make, so the original intention is forgotten once 3 steps away from what you were trying to explain, is extremely frustrating. Sometimes I wonder if it is laziness or an incompatibility in modes of thinking. As translator, you can only do so much and the translation will always be informed by the raw output. If the receiver is operating in an entirely different way (not on your wavelength), they'll hear only noise. Knowing how difficult it is to understand "normie" wavelengths, it may be that others are too far away in modes of thinking from you, try as they may.

[jacob]

Even just requiring to explain further a part of each point you make, so the original intention is forgotten once 3 steps away from what you were trying to explain, is extremely frustrating. Sometimes I wonder if it is laziness or an incompatibility in modes of thinking. As translator, you can only do so much and the translation will always be informed by the raw output. If the receiver is operating in an entirely different way (not on your wavelength), they'll hear only noise. Knowing how difficult it is to understand "normie" wavelengths, it may be that others are too far away in modes of thinking from you, try as they may.

Everything I said above could be modeled as a map of an n-dimensional space. One's mode of thinking can be identified as a point on that map. A translation is a bridge between two such points. As such, it comes down to 1) how big/long is the required bridge?; and 2) who builds it.

Insofar one's point is off in the distance, the bridge is typically long. When it comes to building it, I hold the position that it depends on who is seeking out who. In my moral code, I put that onus on the seeker and not the seekee.

“If I raise one corner for someone and he cannot come back with the other three, I do not go on.”

Doing otherwise is being the obnoxious tourist who insists that the whole world should speak English.

[Slevin]

Pretty much lines up with the model I was thinking up yesterday of doing chores when thinking about the plurality of humans / tastes / opinions whatever where I was assuming that the population is a hyper sphere (well probably a non normal shape I just used hyper sphere because I can sorta picture it and I was normalizing each preference) where the “center” of the hyper object is the mean preference of the population, and distance of a person from that center of mass would be a measurement of “distaste” for the norm.

This mode is obviously not quite matched with reality because there is a “weighting” factor of the opinions by popularity and platform of the users. So the effective societal preference is probably closer to the average of the highest n users (10% of highest weight) instead of the actual center of the hyper object. And the more egalitarian the society, the lower the “weighting” factor that can be acquired by any one individual, and so the effective center of preference comes closer and closer to the actual center of preference.

Then if you find yourself to be an individual that has a high “distaste factor” (distance from the effective center of the object), it will (likely) be harder to find people to connect with (assuming a normal density highest at the center and getting less dense as you get further from the center, which is probably not always the case), however there are still a bunch of people with higher “distaste” factors that you can probably get along with on the basis of distaste, even if the absolute preference is different. This should definitely provide some sense of “being seen” but it is not quite as good as finding those with the exact same preference alignment.

Fun that Jacob essentially built a similar model, but I guess it’s just kinda the default physics-y way to build a preference model.

[AnalyticalEngine]

This analysis has been true in my experience too. An additional complication is that "normies" tend to all be normal in the same way, but people who differ from the norm are all different in different ways. So while society tends to break up into culture and counterculture, you may still even have trouble with your fellow "non-normies" because the way you all differ from average is different from each other as well.

I've found that I am actually pretty good at translating, but it is completely and utterly unfulfilling. It often leads to a dynamic where people like me but I don't like them, which is obviously a serious problem because it makes relationships feel unbalanced.

As an example, I used to be completely bored out of my mind when coworkers would start to discuss Popular Netflix Show. Since taking up writing and shifting my attitude, I can now participate in the conversation from the perspective of trying to figure out how it was written and why it was popular. People usually think it's pretty cool that I can explain how a story was written. But the problem remains that I am operating at a different level (writing the show vs watching the show), and operating inside this different space means I'm still not having a "native" conversation with people.

My current thinking on this topic has lead me to a few conclusions:

1. Consumer society has increasingly killed "weak ties"/civic/community engagement, to the point a lot of people don't even realize these are a thing that could exist, but are an important dimension to cultivate. Seeing these really requires a major shift in thinking. Historically, many weak tie relationships were built off the basis of need, not of actually liking each other, so operating on a basis of mutual need can make a relationship possible, maybe even fulfilling, even if the other person likes fantasy football and you spend all day reading postmodern philosophy.

For example, getting food from Walmart might rob me of a relationship I could have with a local farmer. Listening to music on Spotify robs me from a relationship with the local band. If I produce goods only for myself and my employer, there are people in my community I could be sharing with that I'm not.

I've been trying to move past the "me and mine" and "efficiency" attitude to thinking about how I might connect with people over shared need, even if it's harder, because the fact it's rooted in something external and not "shared subjective experience" might make the relationship possible without translation.

Figuring out how to produce something then distribute it to people may be a good place to start with this. I might start baking twice the bread I need then trying to give extra loaves to associates.

(I'm having issues with this because almost everyone just thinks in consumer terms, so getting people to interact outside of that is hard)

2. Identify people who are not a good match asap then just stop engaging. By "not a good match," I mean people who expect you to translate constantly but are unwilling/unable to return the favor. Or people who only see you as a social role, have rude behavior, whatever.

Also try to consider why the other person is acting the way they are before you get too involved in anything. For example, someone might be talking to you just because they like talking, not because they like you, which requires you expand your theory of mind beyond an introvert who wouldn't talk to anyone unless you liked them. This helps you avoid wasting your limited social energy with people who have different goals than you.

3. Signal what you're looking for openly then cast a wide net. Go to larger events with new people with a single question prepared that might filter for compatibility. Basically you're treating everything like "friend speed dating" because finding compatible people is also a numbers game.

4. Consider how the structure of whatever you're doing is going to create certain social structures. For example, I've had an easier time with coworkers and hobby groups because we talk about stuff that we already share (work and hobby) by default. Work also has benefits as describe in #1.

5. Most people actually have a pretty damned hard time conceptualizing how to socialize outside of existing social structures. Hence why "get married and socialize only at work" is a common pattern for introverts but can be extremely limiting because you're not thinking about how to fulfill your social needs in a creative way. The downside is that trying something "new" puts most people into 404-state because they can't fall back on a script. I actually think this is why loneliness has become such a major problem in American society--traditional structures are dying for material reasons; you cannot push 'go back'--but people just can't conceptualize how to create something else.

-----

The tl;dr of all this is I am going to try to ground interactions with normies in an objective mutual need and not the subjective/intersubjective to avoid the translation problem then cast a wide net to attempt to find people with more mutual subjective experience to mine.

[Ego]

@jacob, you have posted that Confucius quote several times. Here it is with surrounding text.

The Master said, “From one who brought only a bundle of dried meat on up, I have never declined to give instruction to anyone.” [Dried meat, or other food, was offered as a present for teachers. Here it suggests the least one might offer] (7:7)

“The Master said, “To one who is not eager I do not reveal anything, nor do I explain anything to one who is not communicative. If I raise one corner for someone and he cannot come back with the other three, I do not go on.”

It is a logical approach for a teacher to adopt in a teacher/student relationships. Is it a good approach for those seeking more equal friendships? Confucius wants nothing and so he is not willing to give more than a little if the student does not show a willingness to give a lot.

AE wants something very significant. Some might say it is among the most significant things life has to offer.

... what I'm seeking are social connections that can mirror my subjective experience because there is catharsis in turning your subjective experience into an intersubjective one. That's how one overcomes alienation.

I really love it when those connections occur. In my mind they are invaluable and one of the things that cannot be bought at any price. To encourage them, I try to optimize for serendipity. I adopt a position closer to that of an enthusiastic student than to that of Confucius.

That said, even though I am willing to pick up more than my share of corners, I must be prepared to protect myself and yank them from the grasp of someone who is trying to steal the blanket.

[jacob]

It is a logical approach for a teacher to adopt in a teacher/student relationships. Is it a good approach for those seeking more equal friendships?

It is not! Therein lies the problem of being a popular or interesting "outlier". It's hard to find equals. Or compatibles. Or a resonants.

Whatever is a good approach remains a matter of ongoing research ...

[AnalyticalEngine]

I really love it when those connections occur. In my mind they are invaluable and one of the things that cannot be bought at any price. To encourage them, I try to optimize for serendipity. I adopt a position closer to that of an enthusiastic student than to that of Confucius.

I know the Epicureans thought nurturing these types of relationships was one of the most valuable things one could do in life. Getting there is difficult because it requires building one's skills and shifting one's attitude toward other people. I'd argue the default "social paradigm" most humans occupy is constructed purely of normative social roles and identities, which are difficult to look past (the classic example of Plato's cave/Kegan3 and even Kegan4). Cultivating these types of relationships requires both you and the other person can move past the default social paradigm and be vulnerable with each other while also avoiding being in social positions that will sap your vitality. This is not easy at all.

Optimizing for serendipity, however, can be a useful way to look at this problem. I've been doing the default salaryman socialization of driving everywhere and spending money to socialize, which is problematic because it decontextualizes your social life, thus making serendipity harder. Also as an introvert, doing this is absolutely draining and I keep operating at burnout levels of fatigue.

What would be more ideal is if I could somehow make social connections doing things I already need to do without spending money. For example, developing friendship with people at the farmer's market, at a local running group, etc.[1]

This is where I may need to make a more drastic change because where I live now (rich upper class suburb) is not optimized for that type of interaction nor is it optimized for people who are likely to share my subjective experience. I'm going to have to think about how to do this.

[1] I was reading my journal from five years ago, and I noticed I was engaged in an "anti-serendipity" approach to making social ties, which is exactly how I ended up with a less-than-great social environment in the first place. That is, because all I did was work and play video games, I had work friends and gaming friends. The work friends vanished from my life when I changed jobs and I cut the gaming friends all out of my life because they were not a great influence. I lived in the same location then that I do now, which is a social desert of sorts, and that's why my entire social life became work or online gaming.

[7Wannabe5]

This is where I may need to make a more drastic change because where I live now (rich upper class suburb) is not optimized for that type of interaction nor is it optimized for people who are likely to share my subjective experience. I'm going to have to think about how to do this.

I may be wrong, but I think a relatively easy fix for you would be to just move to a liberal University town or neighborhood.

[avalok]

What would be more ideal is if I could somehow make social connections doing things I already need to do without spending money. For example, developing friendship with people at the farmer's market, at a local running group, etc.[1]

It makes sense to me that combining these will make it more likely that you'll find connections of the kind you're looking for. However, the overlap between you and them could still be narrow; it could end up being farmer's market friends and running group friends, as you had previously with work and gaming.

[Ego]

What would be more ideal is if I could somehow make social connections doing things I already need to do without spending money. For example, developing friendship with people at the farmer's market, at a local running group, etc.

A few days ago I began writing a response in your journal that showed just that, how I made an unlikely friendship with a guy who I just happened to repeatedly encounter. I reconsidered posting it here because it was really about me, so I posted it in my journal. viewtopic.php?p=267805#p267805

I have another example that happened in the last few days. An acquaintance mentioned that his 94-year-old mother had recently passed away. He acted like it was no big deal. She was old, lived far away and they didn't have a great relationship when he was young. He shrugged and said something like, "Ah, we all die sometime." When I got home I told Mrs. Ego about his mother's death and she dug through her stash of cards, found a condolence card, wrote a nice message and mailed it to him. I saw him last Friday morning. He had tears in his eyes when he thanked me for the card and repeatedly insisted I tell Mrs. Ego how grateful he was. He confided that when he arrived at the funeral he uncharacteristically broke down crying and was surprised by how emotional he became. I think it is safe to say that we moved from acquaintances to friends as a result of the card and conversation.

Mrs. Ego grew up on both sides of the border and learned a lot of these social graces in a place where they are still regularly practiced. She also reads old etiquette books that are chock full of embedded wisdom. Perhaps we need an etiquette thread here with the goal of developing friendships.

[AnalyticalEngine]

@avalok - This is a good point. An issue I've been trying to work through is a generalized sense of misanthropy that I've built up over the years that is making those types of connections rarer. I want to get to the point where I can enjoy weak ties for what they are while still always keeping an eye out for deeper connections. I'm starting to realize I may have some attachment issues to work through.

@Ego - Thanks for sharing those stories. It's always impressive to see how you cultivate social ties organically. One thing it's making me realize is the importance of learning how to be a good friend. I see a lot of people my age or younger complaining about loneliness, but they want people to be their friend while not having to learn to be a friend to others. This is something I am going to try and keep in mind when I meet people.

@7Wannabe5 - One thing I've been considering doing for about half a year now is putting my condo up for rent then traveling around to a list of locations to see how much I like them. I was considering doing a slow travel thing where I rent somewhere for 1-3 months and try to see what living there is like. I might re-prioritize this goal higher on my goal list because I'm starting to feel like where I live is the limiting factor for a lot of my current issues.

[grundomatic]

I am struggling with the fact the "You are a product of your environment" and "Wherever you go, there you are" are both true. More in the realm of place of employment than in geography, but yes, asking myself "Would I feel/act/be different someplace else?".

Can you better define what you are looking for? If you just need more smart people to talk to or a bigger dating pool or just someone within a 5 mile radius that wants to talk philosophy, that could probably be accomplished with a move. Finding lots of folks that to relate to a wide variety of (your) interests with some actual depth? Could be harder.

Having said that, venture out! Maybe check out places where your ERE besties already live. At least you'll have a starting point.

[jacob]

I am struggling with the fact the "You are a product of your environment" and "Wherever you go, there you are" are both true.

The change [in you] [from changing the environment] is not instant.

[ertyu]

It's not just a matter of time. You're a product of your history in addition to your environment; if you find yourself in a new environment but still have bullshit you haven't dealt with, you'll end up acting out the same old shit and self-fulfilling-prophecy-ing your new environment into a carbon copy of your old one -- ask me how i know

the tl;dr here is one does need to consciously work with any outstanding psychological bullshit one doesn't like the effects of. simply changing locations might help but is unlikely to be sufficient.