Agency transfer notation

[karff]

So, here’s something I’ve wondered about with this scheme.

An example:
It’s useful to think of goods you purchase as financialized assets. At what level of understanding “financialized asset” does diminishing returns set in, with regard to agency?

The level of understanding of an investment banker is quite a bit higher in informational complexity than is needed.

If I say “Just think of its market value and future cash flow potential”, I’m not sure how much subconscious complexity I’m bringing to the thought.

What I’m interested in is a way to know the minimum prerequisite understandings for maximum agency for the situation (considering diminishing returns).

[jacob]

Also, informational complexity is the right paradigm. Are there any simple notations/templates/formats for that?

I personally think the MHC table is pretty good because with a little training in observation of other humans it's also practically useful. Read through the wiki page a few times and memorize the table along with the examples. Soon you'll see be able to match the thinking-depth of a given human to a level in the table. People tend to remain pretty constant in terms of their levels.

MHC measures the context-depth of the perception of the situation. Going to higher depths require abstraction at an increasing level of recursion, that is, abstractions of abstractions, abstractions of abstractions of abstractions WHILE simultaneously filling in all the blanks. (It's relatively easy to talk-about paradigms and cross-paradigms, but it is very hard to actually think this way because it requires both full understanding of each paradigm as well an integration of their contents. As MHC goes up, the amount of data that gets and considered processed increases geometrically, e.g. 2, 4, 8, ...

Note that e.g. MHC12 is to MHC10 what MHC10 is to MHC8 in terms of informational processing. This becomes interesting between with the majority of humans at MHC9, MHC13 is as far away in terms of conceptual depth/span as it is to MHC5 which includes smarter mammals like chimpanzees and well-trained dogs and horses. (One of the more scientific uses of LLMs is to train them on animal-languages. This way in-line translators can be made to understand what animals are saying to each other. Even bats recognize each other as individuals and are capable of giving each other some simple intentional instructions like "move away", "give me food", or "I'm not interested in your sexual advances".)

The generative atom of this model is kinda what you mean (I think) when you say that a person can hold an idea (e.g. a list) as well as a template of that idea (another list) and compare the two. In order to reach a Hegelian synthesis, the person would want to abstract the concept of that list into a variable and then start thinking about a list in terms of its defining variable instead. That's the transition from abstract-concrete to formal thinking. Likewise systems is the abstraction and connection between multiple such formal variable abstractions.

For some reason individuals all tend to take this up to a certain point and then just stop.

For more generic informational density there's Shannon (signal vs noise) and Bateson (recursive feedbacks), but I don't think it's very useful in day-to-day understanding of human behavior. Too mathematical: Effectively, while it's possible to write out the math and talk about extremely high levels of depth, it's impossible to put words or concepts on those equations and turn them into any kind of practical insight.

What I’m interested in is a way to know the minimum prerequisite understandings for maximum agency for the situation (considering diminishing returns).

Aha, yes. Not all pools are infinitely deep. In order to see the depth of a given statement, you just have to get one higher (put it context). If the context adds nothing to the explanation/understanding, there's nothing to be gained by going higher.

There's a bit of Occam's razor here and this is why it's nice to have a hierarchical model. If trying a higher level doesn't increase nuance, the current level is the bottom/end of it already. In other words, someone at MHC8 and someone at MHC12 understands the process of counting the number of apples in a barrel 1 2 3 ... the same way.

[7Wannabe5]

Counting the number of apples in a barrel is a good example, because it illustrates the crossover from agency to more complex improvisation or innovation. Maybe a very well-behaved MHC 8 will tolerate the task of counting all the apples in a barrel, 1, 2, 3, but even by MHC 10, it becomes more likely to choose to count, 2, 4, 6, instead. At MHC 11, the human will more likely start thinking, "Why the f*ck am I performing this tedious apple counting task? What are my other options?"

Similarly, a precocious Laffy Taffy loving MHC11, whose parents have banned the consumption of hard candy and explained their reasoning as above, may choose to do his own research into whether brushing teeth within a specified period after the consumption of hard candy might mitigate the cement formation, etc. Alternatively, he might choose to do research into the likely outcome of some of his parents known habits, such as moderate alcohol or red meat consumption, thereby calling into question the consistency of their applied reasoning and/or professed values structures. In frustration, the parents may then resort to "When you are the adult who pays the dental bills, then you can make the rules." To which our young MHC 11 may respond, "So, what I am learning is that although your professed values are "health" and "rationality", you actually place higher value on "wealth" and "physiological maturity" in a manner most consistent with Level Blue/Traditional, role and rules-based social mechanisms. IOW, my freedom to apply my own values judgment to the candy eating decision is to be limited by the reinforcement of your parental roles by the right to engage in violence or imprisonment held by the state. Is that correct?"

ETA: INTJ is the only MBTI type that ranks "Health" as highest value. "Autonomy" is number 1 with a bullet for INTP and number 2 for ENTP after "Home and Family', "Health" is number 3 for INTP and number 4 for ENTP, thus my narrative of precocious XNTP. IOW, the context in which agency is transferred almost certainly should include values structure of type and SD level. If we express "Health" as "Physical Integrity", then INTJ is one of only 2 out of 14 types that values "Physical Integrity" over "Integrity of Home/Family", although it is #2 for INTJ, with "Achievement" #3 and "Autonomy" #4. MHC alone is not enough, as Hanzi clearly outlined in "Listening Society."

https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/the-mo ... lity-type/

[jacob]

SD warm colors (red, orange, yellow) very consistently believe in individual agency to the point where collective agency may be dismissed as irrelevant. Conversely, SD cold colors (blue, green, turquoise) very consistently believe in collective agency to the point where ... vice versa.

I would have a hard time convincing a stereotypical SD:green that they can make a difference by personal initiative and action. They would argue that individual differences are almost fully determined by "privilege" and that the only form of effective agency is "coming together as a community" for "collective action".

Conversely, SD:orange would likely argue that SD:blue and green herd-agency is why nothing ever changes or change drags on foreeeeever. They will argue that the most significant changes in the world or even their own life were achieved by an individual taking personal responsibility and leading the way.

Such attitudes are often so strong that they are not negotiable.

As such the "notation" will determine very much on what kind of private/public values someone has aside from their ability to comprehend the level of causal complications between action and response.

[karff]

Similarly, a precocious Laffy Taffy loving MHC11, whose parents have banned the consumption of hard candy and explained their reasoning as above, may choose to do his own research into whether brushing teeth within a specified period after the consumption of hard candy might mitigate the cement formation, etc.

My system, as originally intended, is to facilitate just that behavior. The way I asked about the notation made it appear as if I wanted a system to teach people what you wanted them to learn. But, it’s really to give people agency over their own learning, even. It’s intended to subvert any authority figure trying to push their own narrative.

The notation system is an attempt to distill down a system that I didn’t have the personal resources to promulgate (it involved building a website).

I will write out a description of the original idea and post it.

The MHC is just a way of showing the prerequisite understandings for whatever it is you want to learn. I pretty much agree with all that you wrote.

[jacob]

It’s intended to subvert any authority figure trying to push their own narrative.

Then you need to come up with a something, e.g. logic, holy script, or "their own lying eyes", that's perceived as stronger, because the majority automagically takes on the narrative of their preferred or situational authority figure(s) whether it's their spouse, family leader, most admired group member, favorite celebrity, ...

For the majority, "who says it" outranks "what is said". The motivation here being to fit in with the group or simply to be liked by other humans. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conf ... xperiments and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

[karff]

Then you need to come up with a something, e.g. logic, holy script, or "their own lying eyes", that's perceived as stronger, because the majority automagically takes on the narrative of their preferred or situational authority figure(s) whether it's their spouse, family leader, most admired group member, favorite celebrity, ...

Here's what I kind of had in mind.
1. The individual uses the system to learn things no one else has a problem with them learning.
2. They develop a sense that useful information has
a. An extra way of looking at something
b. That extra way enhances their own agency
3. When someone tries to tell them something, they look for those attributes.

I'm sure, if the system became popular, there will be those who try to game those heuristics, so maybe there needs to be more/ something else.

[7Wannabe5]

As such the "notation" will determine very much on what kind of private/public values someone has aside from their ability to comprehend the level of causal complications between action and response.

Yes, but I would assume that Tier 2 (Level Yellow/Integral and beyond) thinkers, having gained an appreciation for all former levels, would recognize that some outcomes are more effectively approached through collective action while other outcomes are more effectively approached through individual action. Perhaps, in most general terms, facilitating change-> individual action, mitigating excess/secondary-effects-> collective action. Dunno. I am simply imagining simple situations, such as a child crowing with delight after winning Monopoly, and then finding himself slammed over the head with the board by his opponent, and the observations or advice that might be offered by concerned other in terms of conduct/policies.

My system, as originally intended, is to facilitate just that behavior. The way I asked about the notation made it appear as if I wanted a system to teach people what you wanted them to learn. But, it’s really to give people agency over their own learning, even. It’s intended to subvert any authority figure trying to push their own narrative.

Gotcha. My simple thought was "explanation" which quickly led to the Deductive-nomological model, " a formal view of scientifically answering questions asking, "Why...?". "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive ... ical_model

[karff]

I had an idea for a website.But, I lack the time and resources (inclination, skill) to make it happen. So, I tried to distill the functionality of the website down into a simple “notation” that could be used to communicate on any forum. I’m starting to doubt I’ll be able to get enough of the functionality left over after the distillation process.

Imagine a wiki type website where each page/entry is a description of a causal function. Or, a description of two causal functions (the one you are trying to execute, and the new one giving you more control over the first one.)

Suppose you want to clean limescale off surfaces. The page would show something to the effect of (cleaning limescale off surfaces = chelating calcium and magnesium ions) thus, citric acid is a good choice, as it is better at chelating calcium and magnesium ions than other household cleaners.

Further down the page it could have other causal functions that are “equal” to cleaning limescale. The order would be determined by the wiki contributors’ own opinions about which one contributed the most to their own agency over limescale deposits.

“Cleaning”, “Limescale”, “Chelation”, “Magnesium and Calcium Ions” would have links to their own causal function pages. I’ve played around with various ideas as to how exactly those are organized, as the causal functions need to be related to something you are trying to do. The main point, is that there is always another way of looking at things, or many ways, depending on what you’re trying to do. Also, that everything is connected to everything else, or the most useful way of thinking about things, is of how it’s connected to everything else.

But always, the simplest, most useful information would be at the top of the page. People can scroll down and dig deeper, or not.

There would be a ”Now you know enough to be dangerous section” where the unintended consequences causal functions are described. In this case, it could be (Cleaning limescale with citric acid = leaving sticky residue on surface), because citric acid is a carbohydrate, and most of them leave sticky residues, with a link to an entry of the causal function of how carbohydrates leave sticky residues (I don’t actually know why, but I’m slightly curious).

Also, for a particular entry, would be a link to a prerequisites page, where all the necessary prerequisite understanding causal functions could be listed in order of usefulness (contributors could debate which order is the best - several alternatives could be shown.)

Links and prerequisite lists would be cross-disciplinary as needed. If enough contributors contributed, the whole web of links would be a map of human agency.

I’ve thought about various formats, rules, guidelines, organizing principles, uses, etc. The above is just a barebones description.

[karff]

It looks underwhelming, but you have to game out it's interactions with the society wide system of information as it now exists. In my mind, at least, it's like a nudge that moves an ocean liner.

The generative atom of this model is kinda what you mean (I think) when you say that a person can hold an idea (e.g. a list) as well as a template of that idea (another list) and compare the two. In order to reach a Hegelian synthesis, the person would want to abstract the concept of that list into a variable and then start thinking about a list in terms of its defining variable instead. That's the transition from abstract-concrete to formal thinking. Likewise systems is the abstraction and connection between multiple such formal variable abstractions.

Where can I read more about this? Specific mechanics of relationships of concepts one or two levels above and below.

[jacob]

Where can I read more about this? Specific mechanics of relationships of concepts one or two levels above and below.

I'm heavily influenced by a background in mathematics (undergraduate) and coding (computational physics phd and later quant work) and this colors my examples/explanations. However, several adult ego development theories deal with how people are able to relate to concepts or relate concepts to other concepts. Kegan, Cook-Greuter, Bateson, and MHC comes to mind---they're all pretty explicit about it, unlike, say, Erikson who just catalogues his observations. The CCCCCC-model described in the ERE books also distills the basic principles into something resembling an increasingly complex command-line style operation system starting with the ability to copy data, then compare two files, then move files into directories, ...