Low Income, Early 20s, Anti-Wage-Slave Living: Walwen's Journal

[7Wannabe5]

Achieving true differentiation is quite difficult, but eventually one should be able to be fully present with others while not engaging responsibility or authority over their emotional states or behavior that does not directly effect you. IOW, the strongest, most self-aware individual will have the most flexible functional boundaries. IOW, being fully differentiated means that you no longer have to "fix" other(s) or "distance" yourself. And, you don't have to be Christ-like to do this, beyond simple reflection upon how you would prefer to be treated by others; which is almost always going to be some mix of love/connection and respect/boundary.

On some level even a concern for taking responsibility for future-you is a projection of one's own juvenile feminine vulnerability with one's own adult masculine energy in the present being the "fixer." IOW, there may be a tendency to "over-fix" to the extent that one does not respect the capabilities of oneself in the future.

[jacob]

Achieving true differentiation is quite difficult, but eventually one should be able to be fully present with others while not engaging responsibility or authority over their emotional states or behavior that does not directly effect you.

Well, that part is easy enough. The problem is that the constellation of friendship includes at least:
1) me
2) you
3) me&you, which affects both of us
and it's that third part that the friendship hinges on. Otherwise, it's just two people. Then some blabla about which variables exactly are we talking about when it comes to influencing each other. This was were the distinction between utility, pleasure, and virtue was useful. If we're only talking e.g. utility-variables, then it's easy to ignore e.g. pleasure or virtue variables, etc.

Framed this way, I see @Walven's complaint coming from the perspective of virtue and @ertuy suggesting that these friends (who lack virtue according to @Walven) be reassigned to the utility category.

I'm saying that virtue is the hardest one because it is the most complex as it covers "my character & your character" for the purpose of mutual benefit. This leaves one of these solutions
a) Move the virtue friend to another circle (e.g. utility or pleasure)
b) Try to make the friend more virtuous (change them)
c) Change yourself to increase the range you deem virtuous. That is, change your own character.

Now we can talk Red, Blue, Orange, Green, Yellow, or Turquoise. Because I think each of these have a different idea about this.

[Ego]

It is distressing to watch someone drink 6 sodas, two entire large pizzas, a family-size bag of chips, and then loudly use the bathroom for 30 minutes, the same way I think I'd be upset watching someone binge-drink and start puking.

It is distressing to watch self-destructive behavior in action....

For a while I was in quite a low mood and felt aimless. ... It's been kinda on my bucket list to see my favorite comedian Emo Philips before he dies ....So I took all the money I was saving for college and I bought the highest tier of festival tickets, booked the hotel...

How does this differ from the self-destruction of your friends?

[7Wannabe5]

Aristotle was a male eNTJ, so his friendship framework is next to useless for a female eNTP. It stinks of uber adult-masculine-energy decisively-put-all-your-relationships-in-clearly-delineated-boxes type functioning. Only three steps up from a kid leaning against a wall sorting the women walking by into marry/fuck/wouldn't-touch categories.

IOW, I refuse to choose in this manner and would point to the obvious reality that any relationship will have aspects of all of these three qualities, as well as others, fluidly changing in ways often beyond our control. That said, like a snake eating her own tail, I will concede that at highest level of functioning a la Kegan, one wouldn't so much "change" one's own character, but rather reflect upon the presence of all possible characteristics within oneself towards greater acceptance of tendencies such as the ENTJ tendency towards rigid/ruthless sorting-mechanism applied to relationships and/or Aristotelian Category Formation. Etc. etc. etc.

Anyways, by happenstance, I was this morning thinking about the character of Nero Wolfe, the brilliant, obese, private detective who is most often classified as INTJ by the internet. And I was wondering whether the fact that he was obese would alone compel classification as INTP rather than INTJ? Also, if I am compelled to sort in box-like fashion, I care much more about whether other humans read books than whether or not they exercise/maintain-healthy-weight. IOW, I view physical fitness as a utility rather than a virtue. Although even the word "virtue" itself strikes me as towards anal-retentive or purity-obsessed or kind-of-creepy. IOW, I don't find those who are focused on the concept of virtue applied to others to be particularly virtuous. I think it might actually be towards the vice of Type 1: The Judge on the enneagram.

[jacob]

@7wb5 - From my perspective, you constantly misunderstand my [enthusiastic] use of categories. It's likely your Ti vs my Ni. The Ti-perspective on categories seem to be neatly separated boxes organized under some logical system in which one is either/or a member of a certain box. Much of the Ti-focus is whether those boxes are logically named, ordered, or occupied.

For Ni, the goal of categorization is more to get the full range---and see the forest for the trees(*). The logical details are not as important as having the categorization cover the complete space. The greatest sin for Ni is to miss some aspect of reality e.g. believing it's 2-dimensional when it's really 3-dimensional. Or in this case missing/forgetting e.g. "friends of pleasure".

(*) More accurately, to be able to abstract a bunch of concrete trees into the concept of a forest.

Same problem when I suggested that FIRE'd people tend to be interested in people, places/events, or ideas/stuff ... and your Ti immediately jumping to an objection that "ideas" certainly don't belong with "stuff" (giving an example of Harbor Freight coupon sales which to your Ti does not belong with hanging out in an antique bookstore). The Ni focus is on "what belongs together", whereas the Ti focus is "rigorous logic" and "exceptions". For example, what "ideas/stuff" have in common is that it's 90% something "that can be done at home by one person"---I said 90% --- whereas "events/places" is 90% something that requires going out to somewhere else possibly at a certain time, and "people" is 90% something that requires interacting with a warm body. Indeed, it doesn't matter [to Ni] whether there are 3 categories they're split into 5 categories (people, events, places, ideas, stuff). What matters to Ni is that we don't forget a category and proceed to insist that e.g. the only thing to do in FIRE is one of those categories, e.g. "you must travel" or "you must spend time in nature" or "you can only read books". Ni does not insist that a person stick to their box. Labels do not constrain as much as they serve to explain(!)

So yeah, it's obvious to me (Ni) too that "every point in the proposed 3D space don't exist on just one axis (e.g. 0,0,5.42)" ... Ni is interested in what the forest looks like, not just a part of it, nor what the coordinates of particular trees are. Basically, the main strength of Ni is the ability to take several perspectives and rotate between them. Ni puts accuracy over precision. Ti puts precision over accuracy.

The difference between Ni and Si (your 4th) is that Ni tends to look at what things have in common. This is what makes it possible to come up with categories. Whereas Si tends to emphasize differences between things or "what does not belong".

Another way to understand Ni from the perspective of Ne is that whereas Ne looks outward (in the brainspace) as a scattershot and seeing where the pellets hit, Ni is playing that Ne movie in reverse. It looks at the where the pellets hit (lots of data points) and then traces them back to the approximate point they came from. For example, a person with a long list of behaviors may trace back to a "friend of utility". That DOES NOT mean that IS what he is .. but rather a SUGGESTION as to what how our relation USUALLY plays out. This method for predictability is why categories are so useful to Ni.

[7Wannabe5]

For Ni, the goal of categorization is more to get the full range---and see the forest for the trees. The logical details are not as important as having the categorization cover the complete space. The greatest sin for Ni is to miss some aspect of reality e.g. believing it's 2-dimensional when it's really 3-dimensional. Or in this case missing/forgetting e.g. "friends of pleasure".

Gotcha. That makes sense. My bad. However, I would note that Ne-Ti is also very much towards the abstract/big picture and also very concerned with prediction. In fact, Ne->Ti-> Fe might be best described as Bayesian Inference Applied to Social/Cultural Context/Construct. This is why eNTPs are very uncomfortable with having any enemies (even though we are often quite obnoxious (sigh.)) Might be akin to the equivalent of leaving a tap dripping or a credit card compounding interest for an INTJ. So, part of my problem with any uber-individualistic strategy or systems design is purely logical/predictive, as in "A design that does not include all the other humans is not very realistic, because the behavior of all the other humans (which I am the type best at predicting) is likely to eventually prove hugely important, unless the overall performance of the system is to be accepted as sub-optimal."

Another way to understand Ni from the perspective of Ne is that whereas Ne looks outward (in the brainspace) as a scattershot and seeing where the pellets hit, Ni is playing that Ne movie in reverse.

Ne has a much broader objective than error collection for Ti. It's primary purpose is to constantly gather new information on which Bayesian will be updated in collaboration with Ti. Ti asks "Does this make sense?" and Ne -> Ti is more towards "Does this still make sense in light of new information gathered?" IOW, I think Ni->Te The Strategist/Scientist is towards constructing minimal elegant model towards action, whereas Ne-> Ti The Scout/Logician frets about the factors/fields not included or recently updated in the model. In terms of the model of the permaculture principles, Ne->Ti gets stuck in Observe/Integrate, whereas those with primary Te tend more immediately towards Obtain a Yield. And, I suppose Ni-Te focuses on creating an elegant design towards obtaining a yield.

Any strategist is going to prefer that the other moving parts of the system are "smaller and slower", whereas it is the job of the scout to explore/exploit at the chaotic margin where flexible schemes are preferred. An iterative framework such as Boyd's OODA loop is actually towards mediating these approaches. The concept of minimum viable product is also towards mediating Te-Ni and Ne-Ti, because Got It Done! and Will Be Updated!

[Lemur]

@Walwen

One of my favorite quotes.

No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man."

Your values change (or not)...and you undergo personal growth, regression, or stay the same. And your friends values change (or not)..and they undergo personal growth, regression, or the stay the same. Over the short-term, these changes are minor (though the under 30 crowd is a bit more volatile and will experience more sudden shifts) but over longer time-frames it is common for most people to diverge. And eventually most will settle in to a certain social group and standing.

If 2025 Lemur woke up in 2015, he would have made a different group of friends then the original crew. Not that there was anything inherently wrong with the 2015 friends.

So you don't have to necessarily "ditch" your current friends, but if you make more friends and hang-out with more +1 WLs...well opportunity costs will factor in and you'll eventually find yourself spending less time with the former. This divergence is natural in people who're changing.

[jacob]

Ne has a much broader objective than error collection for Ti.

I don't think that's what I said.

It's primary purpose is to constantly gather new information on which Bayesian will be updated in collaboration with Ti. Ti asks "Does this make sense?" and Ne -> Ti is more towards "Does this still make sense in light of new information gathered?" IOW, I think Ni->Te The Strategist/Scientist is towards constructing minimal elegant model towards action, whereas Ne-> Ti The Scout/Logician frets about the factors/fields not included or recently updated in the model.

I fully agree with this.

[ertyu]

easily fixable problem

I would argue that if the problem seems easily fixable to you but the person with the problem is having a very hard time fixing it + rejecting what seem to you the obvious solutions, you are defining the problem wrong / you are trying to solve the wrong problem. The problem isn't just its mechanics. It's also its history, its psychology, all the associated fears, all the missing psychological skills, all the relational implications, etc. There is enough technical/mechanical information out there. E.g. in the case of weight and food, you won't need to dig long before you find information on intermittent fasting, food logging /calorie counting apps that would calculate your TDEE and appropriate cal deficit according to starting weight and goals, apps that generate workouts for you, c25k apps, you name it. The tools exist, yet for some reason the person rejects them when they're offered, or isn't using them after they found out about them.

Why?

Here you can say, well it's clearly because they're intellectually and psychologically inferior than me. Or you can say, well, they are given the solution, they're just dumb. By doing this, you blame them for the fact that your understanding of the problem is incomplete and for how your proposed solution doesn't work because it doesn't solve the real problem. You blame them for your own blind spots, in other words.

A ridiculously simple example: if one wants to solve the problem of a person who wants to slash their own wrists, one can say, "well drop the stupid knife and don't slash your wrists, how hard can it be, problem solved. Go take a walk or journal instead or something. Or sign up for a shrink and blow your money if you must, idk. Why don't you just try getting over yourself and ignoring your feelings?" Maybe with a dash of, "well what do YOU have to be depressed for, others have it so much worse. Quit being overdramatic."

I hope it's obvious how such a proposed "mechanistic" solution is completely inadequate as it misses the whole point. It's not that the person doesn't know that walks are nice and journaling and shrinks are a thing that exists. In fact, the problem as it exists in their head is likely to be completely different.

I still think it's a good idea not to overextend for too long. This will just lead to burnout and you'll end up distancing yourself just to protect your sanity saying things like "not my circus, not my monkeys", "your funeral", or a forum favorite: "no responsibility without authority".

I would argue that the ability to feel compassion and be next to people even if they are going through hard times or are flawed without "burnout" is a skill in and of itself, one that Christianity invites one to develop. I am not a christian myself but yes, if you are "forcing" yourself and "doing it wrong," you will burnout. Unfortunately, a lot of what passes for religion these days urges people - mainly women and offspring - to endure out of duty, for example. This can grind you down, no question. So, how do we do compassion right? Imo that is a question a true Christian is invited to answer.

Also, I'm not necessarily suggesting that the friends be reassigned to the utility category. They may be virtuous in other ways besides being addicted or bad at finances.

[jacob]

Here you can say, well it's clearly because they're intellectually and psychologically inferior than me. Or you can say, well, they are given the solution, they're just dumb. By doing this, you blame them for the fact that your understanding of the problem is incomplete and for how your proposed solution doesn't work because it doesn't solve the real problem. You blame them for your own blind spots, in other words.

[...]

I hope it's obvious how such a proposed "mechanistic" solution is completely inadequate as it misses the whole point. It's not that the person doesn't know that walks are nice and journaling and shrinks are a thing that exists. In fact, the problem as it exists in their head is likely to be completely different.

When there are differences, it comes down to how far each person is expected to "travel" to "meet" the other person. My point is that if you're always the one expected to do all the traveling, while they never even make the attempt to come your way, whatever relationship you had is rather uneven.

Some relations are so uneven that they become professional, e.g. money for therapy.

For sure, people have different tolerances and desires as to which degree they're willing to go [towards the other]. For example, one things that triggers me is when someone proclaims that "if I'm so smart, I should be able to explain what I mean in a way that they can easily understand" often with the unstated presumption that they don't have to do any studying at all. Oftentimes, this comes down to a situation where they don't want to understand anyway. They want something else, like conversation, entertainment, or sympathy. Or to put it simpler, you might want to teach a man to fish, whereas the man wants you to do the fishing for him.

"It's not about the nail".

The sooner this is recognized, the sooner one can stop delivering the wrong message/try to deliver something else/give up.

I think friendships should be mutually beneficial---they make each person better off, win-win. I suggest giving up on friendships that are fundamentally one-sided, win-lose ... or broken, lose-lose. Finding new friends is easier than becoming or more realistically pretending to be a different person in order to satisfy the winning side of a win-lose relationship.

Individuals have different degrees to which they are willing to sacrifice themselves for others. I suggest that exceeding the set point of one's personal willingness to sacrifice is unhealthy in the long run regardless of what one's religion is proscribing as the one-way of being.

[Scott 2]

The pitfall in explicit pursuit of mutual benefit, is faults in one's personal model. Ie:

1. Are you drawn to a fixer fixee dynamic?

2. Does insecurity cause seeking those you are better than? Maybe to feel superior or simply out of belief others wouldn't feel you worthy?

3. Are you blind to alternate lenses, evaluating every person by one very narrow and specific frame? Hence dismissing those who might offer the most mutual benefit?


Specialists, by definition, are going to have some weak areas. Our pizza loving magic player could have superior strategic skills or selfless compassion.

If those traits are present, it doesn't sound like Walen is receiving them. Maybe it's a signaling problem. Maybe the magic guy is simply on a different life trajectory. Either way, if that disconnect cannot be solved, more rewarding relationships are out there. For both of them.