Damn it Feels Good to be a Gangsta

[7Wannabe5]

@ertyu:

I agree and eventually you also come to realize that your partner isn't your Mommy and even the complex human woman who pushed your out of her birth canal when she was maybe even younger than you are now and dealing with her own shit isn't your Mommy. Your Mommy exists within you, just like Your One True Love and Your Hero and Your Freedom. They are representations of Your Needs and Your Values, some of which are innate and some of which were early acquired (late acquired traumas and values are more likely to be consciously held.) Once you recognize that Your Mommy is within you, you can learn to hug yourself, and you can more functionally deal with other complex humans who may simply innately not be very huggy, or who may not wish to give you a hug for whatever reason, and you can also more freely exchange hugs with the other humans who do value hugs and wish to exchange them with you for whatever reason.

This "for whatever reason" is critically important, because it pretty much represents the difference between seeking "value" versus "validation" in your relationships with others. Relationships between two adults at the Modern Self-Authoring level and above are based on free contract. All you can contract for with another human is behavior (also the resources attached to behaviors.) You can't contract for shared or preferred emotions, shared or preferred values, or even shared or preferred truths. These belong only and uniquely to each Sovereign Human and can never be made yours through contract. To the extent that you believe or insist they should or wish they could, your relationship will limit possibilities for freedom and personal growth for both of you. IOW, nobody can possibly owe you the desire to give you a hug, but they might owe you the behavior of hugging within free contract. IOW, the statement "I value hugs within relationship. I made this clear to you when we formed contract. I may choose to form another contract if hugs continue to be unavailable within our relationship." forms an appropriate adult relationship boundary. If the other human values the relationship with you enough for whatever reason to maybe choose to go to therapy and work through their own blocked-ability-to-hug issues then that is their work. You can't do any other adult's work for them. You can only form your own appropriate boundaries on the basis of doing your own work.

Eventually, although this may seem hard to believe, doing your own work becomes almost fun, because you learn that anytime anybody manages to trigger you that is a potential spot for personal growth or another opportunity for you to explore something new about you. Any human who claims to have experienced no childhood trauma would seriously give me pause, because I think every human experiences childhood trauma like every human child learns language. The tendency for a human to start babbling at a certain juncture of infancy is absolutely hard-wired, but the environment in which the babbling becomes language learning is not as hard-wired (humans are generally hard-wired to teach language to their young, but obviously specific behaviors and situations will vary.) I would suggest that similar mechanism comes into play with emotions. The infant arrives pre-loaded with emotions and reflexive emotional reactions (diaper pin sticking me in the butt!!!) , and then experiences them within relationships and situational context which constitute the learning of feelings (the cognitive processing of emotions) from emotions.

Unfortunately, some human infants are born into a truly dysfunctional environment in which their early development inclusive of emotional developemt is severely stunted. Most humans are born into a flawed but good enough environment. Some humans, such as those whose MBTI test taken at later juncture might more likely start with Fi, are born with a deeper or more fluidly possessed range of emotion than other humans; we often describe them as being more sensitive. If all goes well enough in their development, they often become our Artists. However, even if all does go well enough, they will suffer trauma in childhood, likely more than other humans due to their innate sensitivity or emotional depth and fluidity. For example, happening upon a dead dog on the road will almost certainly be a more traumatic event for an INFP child than an ESTP child, although this is not to imply that an ESTP child does not possess emotions. It is just not as likely that the ESTP child will immediately feel sadness in such a situation, so may even exhibit behavior that seems heartless from the INFP perspective. If the ESTP human is one of the INTP infants parents or primary caretakers, they may have a difficult relationship and the INFP adult may subconsciously attempt to resolve the difficulties experienced as trauma in this primary relationship within the context of their adult relationships. The gift a highly functional and self-aware INFP might bring as an adult in relationship( or therapeutic setting or as an artist )to an adult ESTP might be helping them to expand their experience of emotional depth, fluidity, and repertoire. IOW, it isn't the case that the ESTP due to trauma suppressed the fluid range of emotions experienced by an INFP; they simply didn't come preloaded with the same depth and fluidity, but they can consciously choose to work on it as an adult, just like somebody with little innate musical or athletic or social or mathematical talent can still choose to expand their capabilities in those realms in alignment with self aware self care and the desire for personal growth.

I hope this made some kind of sense. Kind of a quick summary of stuff it took me several years to process in my 30s. I chose INFP and ESTP, but any other MBTI types could have also been used for similar but different example. One of the benefits of spending a good deal of time working with young children is that you can observe pretty much all the drama of the human experience as it emerges in a group of 15 interacting 4 years olds. When I am engaged in a task such as teaching basic math to a disadvantaged 6 year old who may be innately subjectively sensitive, but also exposed to objectively traumatic circumstances such as havin a parent in prison, I have to sort this out and at least minimally address these realities before I can effectively teach to the part of the child that may also represent a good deal of innate mathematical ability. There are also human children who are objectively or physiologically emotionally impaired; the emotional centers of their brains are damaged in a manner that renders them extremely emotionally reactive to the slightest provocation, and this is also an entirely different circumstance than high level of innate sensitivity or experience of situation that most of us would deem objectively traumatic such as parent in prison, war, overt racism, sexual abuse, or being locked in a closet because you pooped on the floor at age 2. There's also a probable number of moderately objectively traumatic events or situations any of us will experience in childhood, and you're probably lucky if it's just maybe the time Mommy forgot your birthday until 10 PM because very bad month, the middle school bully who called you Jane Brain and ripped up your homework, and the paid caretaker who sang "Que sera sera" when you expressed minor needs she didn't wish to fulfill when you were a toddler.

[suomalainen]

I for one struggle with the word trauma because it's a very loaded word. To me trauma suggests an event or a series of events that were specific in time and space. The medical equivalent would be breaking a bone. Whereas the way it's sometimes used is more the medical equivalent of allergies or some other chronic condition that makes life in a given environment uncomfortable (to say the least). However, I wouldn't describe sneezing every time an allergic person smells a flower as trauma.
...
Now, was I traumatized? (I'm asking rhetorically because I consider the answer to be "no" unless you want to expand the definition of trauma to ... pretty much everything (which is where my sticking point is)).

Just pointing out that in this context definitions seem to matter, even to you, while in another context, you seemed to react to my pointing out poorly defined terms. Perhaps it's just a reflection of personal triggers (having to excessively define in an intellectual context an idea that to you seems simple while to others may be complex could be irritating, while defining things that are challenging to you such as feelings and sensations is less irritating / more necessary)?

ETA: for context for those not following:

I do find purist insistence or discussions of definitions somewhat unrelatable/unproductive.

and a few following posts.

[jacob]

Just pointing out that in this context definitions seem to matter, even to you, while in another context, you seemed to react to my pointing out poorly defined terms. Perhaps it's just a reflection of personal triggers (having to excessively define in an intellectual context an idea that to you seems simple while to others may be complex could be irritating, while defining things that are challenging to you such as feelings and sensations is less irritating / more necessary)?

Fair enough. When it comes to communication, definitions of the terms matter according to the Venn overlap between the sender, the receiver, and the environment the transmission is communicated in. (In the case where others are part of the conversation, like this forum, it also matters which [3rd persons] are watching. And in case people are lurking now or 10 years from now, given the record, it also matters what new lens [4th person] they see it through.)

Communication is all about dialing in the "resonance" or "the vibes". This is why I'll never feel comfortable with the concept of a "jury by your peers" for example. I'll accept it if the court can find them alright, but otherwise, I'm confident that I'll be judged by other standards that are not my own. Quick question: Is this an actual matter of debate or controversy in the legal profession?

ETA: Note how "dialing in vibes from more than one perspective" is different from "agreeing on a definition and deducting formally". Language or conversation (our technology for communicating anyway) is rather inferior---lacks grammar---when it comes to making it apparent what perspective someone uses. Language in developed nations has first, second, and third person. However, I'm not aware of any grammars that have and thus easily communicate 4th and 5th person perspectives. If that was common, it might render a lot of misunderstandings rather trite.

[suomalainen]

Agreed re: challenges in communication. To put it bluntly, in @axel's journal, I felt the frustration you have trying to communicate with "normies". As a "normie" w/r/t topics on which I'm not well-versed, all I can say is [shrug].

This is why I'll never feel comfortable with the concept of a "jury by your peers" for example. I'll accept it if the court can find them alright, but otherwise, I'm confident that I'll be judged by other standards that are not my own. Quick question: Is this an actual matter of debate or controversy in the legal profession?

"Peers" just means regular citizens as opposed to professional judges or other governmental appointees. The 1% (whether by finances or intellect or other measure) are basically fucked. You can, of course, waive your right to a jury trial and ask for a bench (judge) trial. Which is probably how I'd go in a complex matter unless my attorney told me the judge has a bias.

[7Wannabe5]

Trauma? Strength? Weakness?

Well, since "boredom" and "alienation" can be understood as emotions/feelings, I would allow that the gifted child often suffers situational trauma to a varying degree. Clearly, my IQ is not as high as yours, but it is almost certainly over the level where social maladjustment is experienced by females. For example, a minor trauma I suffered in the 5th grade was that I didn't want to play with the other girls because their activities (hopscotch and talking about tiny purses) seemed inane to me, so I usually read by myself on the playground. So, my parents were brought in for a conference about my social difficulties, which I could only defend by noting that I did play with my closest age sister (whose IQ is very similar) at home. Since my parents were educated upper-middle-middle-class and my school district was good and advanced for the era, I had already been identified as gifted in the 2nd grade, so the possibility that I needed a similarly bright playmate was accepted as valid. The amusing in retrospect action that was taken was that I was sort of set-up on playdates with the second highest IQ girl in my class whose father had also been in my father's fraternity in college, and was actually some kind of second cousin once removed degree relative. We didn't entirely click, but I did come to recognize that she was a reasonably interesting companion even though she did like tiny purses. In the 6th grade, I was still in a general population classroom, but my teacher had training in working with the gifted and was quite supportive. I mostly associated with the boy who was deemed the smartest in math, as I had been deemed the smartest in English. He was of Scottish heritage and his last name designated him as member of warring clan, so I chose to play and sing the battle song of the Campbell clan for the school talent show just to provoke him. I also attempted to convert him from his early identification with Atheism with my proto-librarian-logic argument based on the fact that The Bible was shelved in Non-Fiction. Our relationship came to a rough end when I knocked over his bike in outrage on the occasion he had the nerve to ask me to accompany him on a date to McDonalds. This was behavior that I came to regret when he then ended up "dating" the leader of the "ballet girls."

Anyways, I found the article interesting and valid, although I would note that growing up in a family with fairly intellectual, educated parents with IQs on the quite high if not quite gifted range, and also some gifted IQ range relatives is almost certainly (and in my experience) necessary yet not sufficient to avoid maladjustment as gifted child/adult. For example, my paternal grandfather was almost certainly a gifted INTJ, but our relationship was limited to being handed a molasses cookie before he and my father went to other room to engage in adult male conversation and pipe smoking. Also, gifted boys/men tend towards becoming somewhat less maladjusted as they age, while gifted girls/women tend towards becoming somewhat more maladjusted with age. I am also, obviously distantly, genetically related to Martha Carrier*, one of the women who was executed during the Salem Witch Trials. As she was going through this experience, her recorded communication indicated that she was too much of a rational to be able to accept that it was happening to her; she couldn't defend herself against charges that were so irrational. So, I consider myself lucky to be living in an age where eccentric older women are at least somewhat better tolerated by society.

*And both Martha Carrier and I are also genetically related to Laura Ingalls Wilder and her daughter Rose Lane Wilder, who in addition to significantly ghost-writing her mother's series of books about rugged little pioneer girls, was also one of the female founders of the American Libertarian Party. My rational belief is that our degree of genetic relationship is too distant to be of any significance, but remain somewhat freaked out by the fact that I bear a strong physical resemblance to her to the extent that everybody who knows me in real life to whom I've shown her photo in Wikipedia instantly makes comment like "Wow, this woman looks like you." All three of us are descended from the 17th century founder of the city most nearly situated to Thoreau's bean field, and the woods in which he tramped was named after my 8th great-grandmother. So, Yankee frugality is at least in my significantly diluted inherited memes if not genes.

[chenda]

Quick question: Is this an actual matter of debate or controversy in the legal profession?

It is in complex fraud cases, which may be well beyond the ability of the average juror to understand. Juries tend to be drawn from less educated, as middle class professionals can normally avoid jury service (their work is usually deemed to socially important to miss) or can just pay a fine for non-participation.

[Frita]

Well, since "boredom" and "alienation" can be understood as emotions/feelings…

And I would add that there are secondary emotions, probably sadness with distorted thoughts similar to “I should have something interesting do” and “I should have a peer group.” Having such thoughts isn’t so much a big deal as what we do with them.

That may explain why siblings or other survivors experience the same event with different outcomes. Trauma has an individual component of perception. Additionally, if one person has more challenges (i.e., learning difficulties, chronic health condition, being a short male, etc.), they may have less bandwidth for another challenge. Conversely, they may have developed resilience to generalize. Very interesting IMO.

For me, the question is more of how we support ourselves and each other as these situations arise.

[Jin+Guice]

I'm not sure why we need trauma as a word here at all.

Because the pathway disconnect is the same as if you'd experienced a big-T trauma event, it's just an accumulation of small-t traumas, which again can make it harder to identify (although plenty of people ignore big-T traumas and their effects too).

Now, was I traumatized? (I'm asking rhetorically because I consider the answer to be "no" unless you want to expand the definition of trauma to ... pretty much everything (which is where my sticking point is)). Now, clearly there was some kind of "intellectual neglect" or even worse...

I strongly disagree. Your story is the story of being traumatize by my definition. You were forced to mute a part of yourself due to continuous negative feedback from the environment. I also disagree that this is nearly everything.

I think there is a lot of trauma in the modern world. We are not wired for the way the world we have built operates, so we receive inaccurate signals from that wiring constantly. Institutionalized schooling is not some mandate of god, it is a human made institution whose origins were preparing workers to work in often dull settings doing repetitive tasks. I argue it is still exceptionally good at this.

I think neglect is traumatic.

The thing is:

I for one struggle with the word trauma because it's a very loaded word.

Yes, I agree, I think the only reason to use it is to emphasize what I wrote above, that a bunch of small trauma can still add up to similar responses as a big trauma.

Let's leave the term trauma behind, because I agree it is loaded, and I understand why you don't want to call your experience traumatizing. Let's use "undigested experience."

When you are forced to mute your giftedness and ways of expressing yourself, that leaves your experience undigested. Another term could be "unexpressed experience." It is possible to digest or express these experiences at a later date, in which case you don't block out that part of yourself or you heal from the experience.




I think there still may be a misunderstanding. I'm not saying you need to do a bunch of hippie spirit retreats and go to a bunch of feelings circles. That's not what alignment in sensation, emotion and cognition are. The process is purely internal, though it can and often does involve external expression. Much like I think rationalist/ scientific modernist value meme biases cognition, yet still ends up with a bunch of people who aren't good at actually thinking, I think the postmodern value meme biases emotion and sensation, yet still ends up with a bunch of people who aren't actually good at emotional or sensational processing.

I focus on sensation and emotion both because they are ignored in the modern value meme and thus I think more in the shadow of the majority of people. They are also lower-level and more subconscious than cognition. I also still think we live in very intellectual times (compared to the past)... except by the intellectual standards of our own time. This is again not to say that cognitive/ intellectual undigested experience and the resulting repression is not rampant (no time to remember this like an election followed by the holidays!).

Alignment in sensation, feeling and cognition are receiving and processing the signals from those systems accurately. The body and subconscious are constantly taking in and discarding information and only occasionally sending alerts to the conscious mind. Yet we are failing to notice and process these signals due to turning them off or ignoring them (because at some point we deemed this more important to survival than processing them and so we develop fear or shame around that particular signal).

Likewise, needing to mute your thoughts or not express your intellectual gifts can have the side-effect of turning them off. Thankfully for all of us here, it appears this didn't happen for @jacob.

I think it is still happening for the vast majority of people though. I don't think people are as stupid or vapid as they appear, I think they are trying to get their needs met in the extremely narrow set of conditions their undigested experience has lead them to believe are acceptable.

[7Wannabe5]

And I would add that there are secondary emotions, probably sadness with distorted thoughts similar to “I should have something interesting do” and “I should have a peer group.” Having such thoughts isn’t so much a big deal as what we do with them.

Yes, in my case the emotion would have been closer to anger or righteous indignation. One of my 8w7 mother's famous expressions was, "I'm not your clown." uniformly offered in response to "We're bored." So, very early on I accepted that it was my responsibility to take action to relieve my own boredom, but I couldn't do that if I was imprisoned in school. So, what I generally attempted to do with that emotion was try to figure out some way to escape/break out of prison.

I also had little difficulty socializing with general population of other girls of my age in less regimented settings such as the extremely unsupervised run wild and pee in the woods Girl Scout camp I attended that summer. I think I just have little interest in participating in social situations where girls/women are inclined or socialized towards "prissy." I also loathed having to associate with the small-town-shellac-haired-ballet-moms when my daughter was going through her dance phase. In middle school my clique was largely composed of the smart jolly jock girls resulting in my brief and only participation in the world of sports (voted Funniest Player for my extremely bold yet almost always unsuccessful volleyball moves), and in high school I floated pretty freely between a number of groups but landed most frequently with the AP Science girls who enjoyed chatting about sex and bitching about the unavailability of coffee in the cafeteria over lunch. By senior year, I was generally showing up to school in my early-version 5 minute prep time Nerd Camper look, based on my theory not infrequently espoused to my lunch mates which was, "It doesn't matter what we wear, because boys only care about how you look naked.", and I kept making copies of the same doctor's slip whited out every time (as often as possible) I skipped out of school. My sister barely graduated she skipped school so often, but her SAT scores were super high, so the vice principal let her do some make-up work in his office at the last minute. We were both kind of infamous for always knowing the answer in math class, but never having a pencil.

[Jin+Guice]

Important Concepts

This is a very long post about different models that are important for the rest of this series. It's meant to function as an index so that I can reference them later. I may update with more later as needed.



Integration:

Integration is transcending a previous dichotomy. 
For example, if I believe that selfishness and altruism are at odds with each other and I find a set of actions that are both selfish and altruistic (or find that when we are at our most selfish we are at our most altruistic), then I've transcended this dichotomy by integrating it.
Many things I'm going to talk about have a dialect nature that can, in some cases, be transcended and integrated. However, missing the dialectic nature of certain elements lead to all sorts of misunderstandings.



Effective Value Meme:

This is a concept from the book "Listening Society." It's similar to Spiral Dynamics, though I find it easier to use. The effective value memes (corresponding SD levels in parenthesis) are:

Archaic (beige): Pre-historic
Anamistic/ Post-Archaic (purple): Hunter-Gatherer societies (think cave drawing)
Faustian (red): Early agrarian societies (might makes right)
Traditional/ Post-Faustian (blue): Religious agrarian societies
Modern (orange): Industrial Societies
Post-Modern (green): Post-Industrial Societies (manipulating symbols)
Meta-Modern (yellow): No society yet, possibly emerging in Nordic Countries

The value memes move in a dialectical fashion between individual and social but also between state change and reaction. The state change is based on large-scale energy changing technological innovation and the reaction is centered around organizing the output of that innovation with a new social technology. Each effective value meme increases complexity and integrates the meme before it.

The first pair of this is archaic/ animistic. We don't know much about these states and since we are historically and culturally far removed from them, it's difficult to not impart our own values on any historical record or current incarnation.

The second pair is the faustian/ post-faustian (traditional) pair. The technological innovation was agriculture. This allowed some specialization and social hierarchy, which allowed warlords to build armies and conquer other non-agrarian societies.

Over time these cultures grew quite large. This happened independently in several places around the world. As societies grew larger, they required ever more coordination. This coordination was achieved through religion. Religion tempered the leaders, holding them accountable to powers higher than themselves. This is extraordinary! Rulers who previously only recognized the might of the sword gained higher coordination, but also became subservient to, religious leaders. Religious belief became the dominant form of human coordination. In large cultures, throughout history, it was the belief leaders who controlled empires and raised armies. These armies still relied on charismatic strong men and the might of the sword. However, without a culturally unifying belief, armies of the scale seen at the pinnacle of the traditional value meme are not possible.

The next value meme pair is modernism/ post-modernism. Modernism is the value meme dominant in western democracies. The struggle between traditional, modernist and postmodernist values are a lot of the struggles we see today. Modernism worships progress and economic growth. The technological innovation that brought it to fruition was the industrial revolution, coupled with fossil fuels. Modernism is able to pull off the large-scale coordination of traditionalism by transitioning from religion to nation state (and/ or economic progress) belief coordination.  Postmodernism, which is yet to be determined as a mainstream cultural movement, deconstructs modernism.

Postmodernism is in its early stages as a cultural movement. It appears to be all critique and no action. However, compare religion to warlords. Based on purley material concerns, warlords should crush religious leaders. Yet it was the religious leaders who controlled and manipulated warlords and ultimately raised the larger armies. In the same way, postmodernism relies on the massive material, technological and productivity gains of modernism, yet recognizes that, with all its pragmatism and realism, modernism is subject to social control by those who can manipulate its meaningful symbols and coordinate its output.



Three Stage Social Relationship Model

This concept is from Mark Manson's e-book "Healthy Relationships."

Social interactions can exist on three planes:

(1) Feels good is good (Child)
(2) Transactional (Adolescent)
(3) Value based (Adult)

"Feels good is good," which is the emotional level that most children are at means that your inner sense of self-worth is derived from the external environment. Children are at this level because they need to be in alignment with their caretakers in order to survive. Thus if they do something such as eat a bunch of sweets, which feels good at that moment, they believe they are good. If they later feel sick because of eating too much sugar, they believe they are bad. If their caretaker catches them eating sweets and tells them it is wrong, they believe they are wrong.

This level of emotional interaction leads to extreme identification with external conditions, which is why it is healthy only in children, whose primary emotional job is to formulate internal worlds based on lots of feedback from the external world.

Transactional: Transactional relationships are relationships where you may act against your own immediate self-interest, that is do something that feels bad, in order for future gain. In transactional relationships, we may not realize that something feels bad, such as when we give a store money to obtain food in return; however, without getting something in return, we feel we are harmed in the transaction.

Transactional relationships represent a "what's in it for me" mentality. They are the result of us learning our own preferences as well as getting social feedback from the world. Throwing a temper tantrum every time we are upset or stealing isn't ultimately going to get us very far.

While many see this as how the world works, these relationships feel gross. They prevent the highest levels of intimacy and feelings of communiality.
Value Based: Value based interactions are when two people who know their own values interact in a way that is not transactional or based on "feels good is good" sentiments. Both parties are still aware of their emotional states as well as possible gains/ losses of the social interaction.

These interactions ultimately end up being more about giving than receiving. To identify these relationships, identify areas where you give without expectation of receiving and still feel good about yourself. Giving with a specific expectation of receiving diminishes these interactions.

In the modern world, having these interactions requires a strong filter and self-knowledge. We usually do not want to give without receiving to those who wish us harm or who view the relationship transactionally. We do not want to give so much that we later regret it. Further, some relationships in the modern world are purely or mostly transactional. This is a result of the money system as well as interacting with more people than we can possibly know.



Impulsivity and Undigested Experience vs. Emotional Maturity

I think when people talk about "being emotional" negatively they mean being impulsive. Initial impulsive emotional reactions are often big and include a call to action.

In particular I think it is the call to action which haunts us. These impulsive reactions are often driven by undigested experience, where we respond more to the past than the present. They are still important signals that something is wrong.

Longer-term emotions are lingering feelings of discomfort. We may rationally agree with an argument but not emotionally agree with it. If we don't recognize these feelings, we create logical arguments defending our emotional position to eliminate the cognitive dissonance without understanding our actual reasons for emotional discomfort.

Emotional maturity includes being aware of the message our emotions are telling us as well as an awareness of when our emotions are encouraging us towards actions that are out of alignment with our circumstances or values.

Emotional maturity is the required element that enables us to realize our values and actualize through doing what we want to. Those without the intuition and feedback mechanism of emotional maturity will be ruled by impulse and/ or undigested experience if they do what they want.



Social Status: In Group/ Out Group

Humans are very sensitive to social status. We size each other up as soon as we meet each other, developing, often subconscious, heuristics and judgements based on other's appearance and actions.

It's impossible to know everyone we interact with in the modern world. As such, the heuristics we develop based on context, appearance and snap judgements end up being very important.

For any given social interaction, the most important status judgement we make is the "in group/ out group" judgement. If we decide that  a person is in our in-group, we then move onto evaluating their position in that hierarchy. However, if we decide that a person is in our out-group, we view them as sub-human from a status perspective.

One of our biggest fears is being out-grouped by (1) people we hold in high social regard in our own in-group; (2) our current in-groups and; (3) people we are emotionally attached to. Being out-grouped by one of these groups is experienced to varying degrees as social and/ or emotional death.
We also fear loss of social-status, though to a lesser degree. Losing face in front of our in-group or people we perceive as high-status individuals sucks. However, social status can be recovered. It is much much harder to recover from being out-grouped.



Body, Heart, Mind and Safety

I'm breaking Maslow's hierarchy into bodily needs, emotional needs and mental needs. I call these "needs of the body," "needs of the heart" and "needs of the mind."

The Hierarchy (from lowest to highest):
Body: Physiological
Heart: Emotional/ Esteem and Social
Mind: Cognitive and Aesthetic

I've left out safety. I think it's wise to split the "safety" need into the three categories above. You are physiological safe when you are alive and you feel physiologically safe when your body does not perceive itself as being threatened. You are emotionally alive when you are not experiencing "emotional or social death" and you are emotionally safe when you feel emotionally and socially safe. You are cognitively alive when you do not experience "cognitive or aesthetic death." You are cognitively and aesthetically safe when you are not bored or being attacked by abrasive surroundings.



CAG Model

The CAG model is from the book "How to Want What You Have" and it is indeed how to want what you have. The acronym stands for:

Compassion
Attention
Gratitude



Game Denial, Game Acceptance, Game Change

This concept is from Hanzi.

Game Denial means denying conditions that exist and insisting on conditions that "ought to" exist.

Game Acceptance means accepting conditions that exist but denying that better conditions exist and change is possible.

Game Change is accepting conditions that exist and learning to play by their rules while simultaneously identifying positive changes that could be made and working to effect those changes in the world.

[thef0x]

Really enjoying your essays and listening to your internal chewing-through of these concepts.

... postmodernism relies on the massive material, technological and productivity gains of modernism, yet recognizes that, with all its pragmatism and realism, modernism is subject to social control by those who can manipulate its meaningful symbols and coordinate its output.

Agree entirely. Makes me wonder..

Do you think that postmodernism is a positive philosophy? Not that it's optimistic but meaning it espouses a way of specific living / values.

I kind of see it as a critique more than a philosophy about what to do or value. My same issue with libertarians or nihilism.

Also wondering, taking a post-modern swing at this, if you think historical dialectics are accurate / true / predictive in the first place?

To me, sometimes they feel a little too convenient & retroactive, lacking a lot of that predictive power I've come to admire from science.

Some thinkers are more or less convinced that historical dialectics are predictive or true and that modeling intrinsic forces of human nature/behavior into the future (predicting history) is possible. I'm curious where you land on the (meta)topic or how you'd describe your level of conviction on the legitimacy of historical dialectics.

Thanks again for your post.

[Jin+Guice]

Do you think that postmodernism is a positive philosophy? Not that it's optimistic but meaning it espouses a way of specific living / values.

I kind of see it as a critique more than a philosophy about what to do or value. My same issue with libertarians or nihilism.

I think it's a value meme that has a specific way of living/ values. As an art movement, it produces art. It is informed and driven by critique and can at times be overly reliant on critique, but it's hard to develop new values without examining and criticizing the old.

What I find interesting about post-modernism is its ability to go beyond the cold hard realities of modernism. Imo, runaway modernism is how you end up with consumerism, more for the sake of more, and institutions and technologies which service the idea of technological and economic progress while ignoring the human and environmental costs. If the true purpose of progress is supposedly to improve the human condition, then is it not eventually subjective experience that matters above objective metrics?

Of course this can be taken too far and just as blind adherence to increasing gdp and personal wealth birthed the ideas that form post-modernism, I imagine blind adherence to the importance of subjective states and critiques of modernism will birth the ideas that form the next social meme.

Also wondering, taking a post-modern swing at this, if you think historical dialectics are accurate / true / predictive in the first place?

To me, sometimes they feel a little too convenient & retroactive, lacking a lot of that predictive power I've come to admire from science.

I'm not looking or predictability, I'm looking for descriptive power. In my mind, dialectic thinking is just a lens to view history through. The question, which is relevant to my question of actualization (or what to do in the WL6-8 range), is whether a dialectic model is useful for describing what I think has happened and what I think is happening now. If consumerism is collective delusion, how did we end up here and why do we stay here? Value memes explain that to me and they have a dialectic pattern, which I also notice in other models that I think have descriptive power.

This is also social science, which I think lacks much predictive power. Similar to what I just said, I think social science is interesting as various lenses to view the past and present through rather than something possessing much absolute truth or able to predict the future the way a model of gravity does.

Thanks for the questions, I hope I have answered them!

[jacob]

@both -

Also wondering, taking a post-modern swing at this, if you think historical dialectics are accurate / true / predictive in the first place?

To me, sometimes they feel a little too convenient & retroactive, lacking a lot of that predictive power I've come to admire from science.

I'm not looking or predictability, I'm looking for descriptive power. In my mind, dialectic thinking is just a lens to view history through.

This might have already been answered upthread or at least elsewhere in recent forum history.

These days the hard sciences are all but a contest between making predictions vs falsifying predictions. However, it wasn't always so. Even within the halls of science there are still people who are afraid to offend authoritayyy ... but aside from a few traditional dinosaur traditionalists, the greatest win for a scientist in late 20th/early 21st century science is proving some old science/scientist wrong.

Wasn't always so though. The current attitude of scientists is 99% based on Popper. Previously, the tenant of modernism was to provide the simplest possible consistent explanation of nature. Occam's razor. The metric was explanatory power divided by simplicity of assumptions. The grand goal was a "theory of everything": A framework, which given an observation, would provide an explanation according to what Popper showed was the logical fallacy of "just so". IOW, affirming the consequent. Monkey thinks A->B, monkey sees B, monkey therefore believes A has been proven. Also see confirmation bias. Popper pointed out that A->B logically means not B->not A, so we should focus on falsifying B to check whether A is true rather than looking for instances of B to confirm our belief in A. Most scientists have caught up with that. Most humans, not so much.

I'm likely biased by my sciency roots in terms of how I understand a question about whether human dialetic is historical in nature. I interpret this question as whether some aspect of history "repeats in a predictable matter" rather than whether it "provides a framework for discussing the past". (The difference between the two should be clear from the previous paragraph!!!)

I don't think it's a matter of either or. Black or white. However, I do think we can grade these things of a scale (or two or three scales). I do think that insofar history doesn't repeat, it does at least rhyme. As such, it's possible to predict very general outcomes such as a sloshing back and forth between collectivist frameworks and the individualistic frameworks---and thus that an individualistic orientation is likely to follow a collectivist framework and vice versa. However, social science or "psychohistory" is also not good enough to predict exactly what that is. As such we're consigned to deal with the duck test as we work out the next steps of human history. (Basically, the experimenter in the social sciences is very much part of the experiment unlike the sciences where it's possible to isolate variables.) If something looks like a duck and acts like a duck but fervently claims it's not a duck and is just making ducking jokes, is it still a duck?

This may be the main philosophical/epistemic challenge of Tier2/21st century thinking. We went from one truth to multiple truths and truth doesn't matter and now realizing that perhaps maybe truth does matter and trying to figure out which one it is.

[7Wannabe5]

Masculine Gaze on the Feminine (Traditionalism)-> Masculine Gaze on the Masculine (Modernity)->Femine Gaze on the Feminine (Post-Modernity) -> Feminine Gaze on the Masculine (Post-Post-Modernity or Meta-Warrior Culture.)

Consumerism is secondary effect of the Masculine Gaze on the Masculine resulting in Extreme Competition. For example, within Modernity if females are competing in a beauty pageant (like peacocks), they are as much in their masculine energy as when they are competing with men in a corporate setting. Lady Macbeth is an early Modern-Female-in-her-Masculine-energy character. It's only because we are so steeped in this Modern perspective that we tend towards seeing Peacocks as feminine and Stags as masculine.

The Post-Modern Feminine Gaze on the Feminine might seem weak, but it can be understood as akin to a phrase Nate Hagens used in recent video, "softening the gaze." When we "soften our gaze" from the "hard focus" of Modernity, we allow our attention to take in more information at the periphery which naturally moves us more towards a more inclusive and systemic perspective. Obviously, when young men who are successful at Modernity suddenly find themselves "breaking" from the philosophy of progress and/or the thrill of competition, this is an aspect of coming to inhabit their own feminine energy and develop their own feminine gaze. From within this gaze, the movement of women to the Feminine Gaze on the Masculine can often seem like regression (and sometimes it is.) A post-modern female may be thinking/feeling, I want my masculine energy to be respected at Modern, and I want Feminine Energy to be valued at Post-Modern, but , apologies to bell hooks, I do not necessarily feel attracted to men in their feminine energy (which is not to imply a lack of attraction to men competing in their own male beauty in the manner of peacocks or artists.)

So, Modern Men in their Masculine Gaze on the Masculine may err in thinking that the primary pressure or problem that builds up at the boundary of the Post-Modern is that The Feminine Energy Collective is not Getting-Things-Done!, but that has simply never been true; it is a projection; any Warrior culture can only be based on an independently functional feminine collective. For example, my DD33 and her husband belong to a very Level Green Post-Modern Community Choir* and one of the songs they recently performed was African folk, with the chorus, "It takes a whole village to raise one child, It takes a whole village to raise our children." Scott Galloway on "Diary of a CEO" while speaking of his concern about young men today, mentioned that there aren't enough male kindergarten teachers, and I would expand this to note that there aren't enough men in either their masculine or their feminine energy showing up at the door of the kindergarten building. Expand this notion, soften gaze further to perspective that places all the children in a given Watershed in a centralized location where they are being cared for by a female collective that has little difficulty with co-operatively gathering enough food. (Yesterday, I literally worked in a setting as close to this as imaginable within current paradigm, and once again observed that this is the sort of setting in which the human potential for co-operation is maximized.) What can a self-aware young "warrior" in his masculine energy bring to the boundary, within the Feminine Gaze, of the functional feminine (inclusive of men consciously in their feminine energy) collective?** (I could pretty much endlessly expand this with all the rainbow of possibilities for individuals consciously inhabiting energies of their choice in various contexts, but don't want to dilute this first take.)



*Her husband is so very post-modern, I was initially worried that he might not be masculine enough for her over the long run until I heard him overtly growl when my daughter opened a particularly sexy wedding shower present.

**not to be confused with the lone female isolated in her feminine energy in 1950s household or barefoot and pregnant in a rural cabin. This is why "protect and provide" is no longer adequate/appropriate. At a higher level of development, the challenge is more complex, as would be expected. For most Modern men, it starts with getting in touch with their own feminine energy and then gaining perspective on how this energy can contribute to co-operation rather than wasteful competition on "the hunt." IOW, men generally need a "band of brothers" bound by affection and common purpose before they can become strong enough to contribute at the boundary of the feminine collective, because the Feminine Gaze on the Masculine forms a serious reckoning force field. KInd of like if when you went on a blind coffee date, and your date's grandmother who runs the community permaculture and both of her great-aunts who are on the river species foundation board and trustees of the tantric yoga center, were sitting at the next table checking you out. Baby boy, how you gonna step up to that?

[Scordatura]

Hello,

A few comments, but first a disclaimer:
I'm not as advanced in these topics as you seem to be, but I think I may have something to add for you a bit lower to the ground. You decide.

1) I'd make the point that the distinction between traditionalism, modernism, and post modernism seems arbitrary. I don't say this is fallacious necessarily, it depends on what you are trying to do with the distinction whether it works or not. I'd warn that value systems haven't gone anywhere, they've just made God take a backseat. In other words, we're just as religious as ever. (the phrase "devout atheist" anyone?) Perhaps the atheism example makes you bristle (not intended), but I'm making the point that even the New Atheists have value systems that are functionally religion, even if the dogma is different. In the modern era. As modernists. I don't really think the difference between traditionalism and modernism is the same size gulf as the one from modernism and postmodernism. Might be wrong.

2) Similar point about the use of dialectics.. Have you asked yourself what you are doing with them? They seem to be good for political rallying and analysis, (Hegel, Marx, Etc.) but I don't think they foster clear thinking in all cases. Or even most cases. It's a highly intelligent and brainpower intensive case of "when all you have is a hammer.. everything is a nail." I think it misses nuance in the description, which I think you care about. I also think it lacks predictive power which I care about, but you seem to care less about. ( this is okay.)
The aphorism that comes to mind is "All models are bullshit, some are useful bullshit."

3) On science I'm so far out of my league it's not even funny, but I'll give it a stab. At least SOME of the scientific establishment fits the Thomas Sowell definition of intellectual: someone whose end product is ideas. Note that this definition excludes people like engineers whose process is certainly idea oriented, but the end product is things. These intellectuals in the popular institutions may or may not be interacting with fundamental truths, there may not be physical verification or the verification itself may be suspect. Now to weave in the Rothbard concept of intellectuals seeking power: it is often easier to become the king's mathematician and propagandize for him (the king) on a cushy salary than to do the actual rigorous scientific method. And the layperson has a difficult time destinguishing between the king's mathematician and Srinivasa Ramanujan. My modern real world examples of this would be tobacco's health benefits and the Food Pyramid. Industries can and do buy their version of the king's mathematician. Not all of science is science, if that makes any sense.

As an aside, I've heard Eric Weinstein winge about how physics has gone down a weird path since string theory based on a few scientists in high places and he makes it seem unfruitful and disastrous. My bullshit detector sometimes squawks randomly when he speaks, so I don't know seriously to take this. I can attempt to find the clip if interested.

I hope this was at least entertaining, and maybe even productive.

Cheers,
-scordatura

[7Wannabe5]

I also think it lacks predictive power which I care about, but you seem to care less about. ( this is okay.)
The aphorism that comes to mind is "All models are bullshit, some are useful bullshit."

Well, for instance, I can predict that if it were my goal within the self-aware Modern/Post-Modern to find myself conventionally married again by the end of 2025, I would be best served by focusing on dating men who adhere to the Traditional. Of course, I would also have to fake that I adhere to the Traditional, so would only do if I had to for survival,because otherwise opposed to my ethics. But, it would be easy to do, because the perspective/moves of a man who adheres to the Traditional would be very predictable for me. So, kind of like shooting at fish in a barrel.

Obviously, predicting "what's next" from my own current extremely limited perspective is much more difficult and prone to error. By analogy, much more difficult to find/attract a human in masculine energy to enter into ecstatic sexual union with me at post-post-modern. I mean, it can happen, but it's about as likely as bumping into somebody on the bus who wants to talk to me about surreal numbers, but there are some signs I am aware of within the bounds of my ignorance.

[delay]

As an aside, I've heard Eric Weinstein winge about how physics has gone down a weird path since string theory based on a few scientists in high places and he makes it seem unfruitful and disastrous.

Hear, hear. Long before string theory there were Maxwell's equations. These are beautiful equations but they do not model reality. Maxwell himself was aware of it. My university teachers knew it, but they still taught it. The substack Fiat Lux carefully explores the situation.

Engineers tend to ignore theoretical physics, so perhaps not much harm is done. We certainly enjoy excellent wireless communication today.

[jacob]

1) I'd make the point that the distinction between traditionalism, modernism, and post modernism seems arbitrary. I don't say this is fallacious necessarily, it depends on what you are trying to do with the distinction whether it works or not. I'd warn that value systems haven't gone anywhere, they've just made God take a backseat. In other words, we're just as religious as ever. (the phrase "devout atheist" anyone?) Perhaps the atheism example makes you bristle (not intended), but I'm making the point that even the New Atheists have value systems that are functionally religion, even if the dogma is different. In the modern era. As modernists. I don't really think the difference between traditionalism and modernism is the same size gulf as the one from modernism and postmodernism. Might be wrong.

Mostly in response to (1) but all this should cover (2) and (3) as well.

The differences between the three *isms are sufficiently large to warrant the split in classification. Most people only ever spend time in one of these bubbles and so their respective *ism basically becomes the water they swim in to the point where they are not aware of it. They will in turn judge people from other bubbles based on their personal values rather than the values of the bubble the person inhabits.

The value systems are not just about ethics but also how people arrive at these values. To give an example, lets consider how the different *isms determine right from wrong.

Early traditionalism (SD:Red) originally used trial by combat to determine right from wrong. If people had an argument, they would literally fight (possibly to the death) and whoever won was considered morally correct, because ... clearly the gods had favored this person with a victory because they were right. This method would be considered pretty much inconceivable today---imagine going to court and being handed a sword and told to fight it out. Of course you still see drunk idiots "taking it outside" the bar to "settle it", but this is not how all matters in society are settled anymore.

Late traditionalism (SD:Blue) then changed to a point where morality was revealed or handed down. Typically by an all powerful god or as written with commandments in a holy book. These truths were considered timeless and unchanging. The only human input would be to perhaps interpret them slightly differently. This does not seem so inconceivable to many people alive today. For example, many Americans still see The Constitution as the equivalent of holy script---generally not to be changed willy-nilly. A moral human being is someone who unconditionally accepts these commandments as an article of faith and puts them into practice. And yes, there are people who think like that. If trying to decide what the right decision is, they will literally consult the book to search for the answer.

Modernism (SD:Orange) took the perspective that morality should follow from reason (meaning logical rational argument) as applied by humans. The idea behind modernism is that any human can discover truth. To a modernist, truth is an objective standard that humans can discover through reason. Morality to a modernist is acting in accordance with that objective truth. The virtuous person would be the one who could better use reason and that truth to further their goals. Similarly, the moral code for society would be the one that most effectively used reason to make that society more effective at its goals. These are ideas like utilitarianism (the greatest sum of good) or Rawlsian justice (the least worst outcome). To a modernist, the idea that one should blindly follow the edicts of an old book (because old book!) is silly. Instead a modernist will try to figure out what the objective truth is and use reason and consistency to find an answer. Modernists have a really hard time dealing with people who don't use reason or don't care about objective truth.

Postmodernism (SD:Green) switched from one objective truth to personal subjective truths. What matters here is less respect for the one truth, whether it's handed down by the gods as in traditionalism or reasoned out by humans as in modernism. Instead, postmodernism prioritizes respect for every human's ability to have their own truth---"lived experience" as it may be. The goal for postmodernists is to let everybody live according to whatever it is they may personally believe (wrong as the modernists or traditionalists think it is). As such key tenets of postmodernists is tolerance and striving for a society where everybody both have the means and freedom to live whatever their own truth is. The idea that any clown can just make up their own crackpot beliefs makes both traditionalists and modernists bristle. However, to a postmodernist, reason matters less than sentiment. If something is objectively wrong yet conveys a message, it meets the subjective standard of a postmodernist, because postmodernists insist there's no objective truth [beyond tolerance/acceptance that everybody can have their own truth].

Since people generally aren't in the habit of discussing the foundations of their ethical reasoning at dinner parties or at work, these differences don't really reveal themselves. Also, most humans aren't really in the habit of trying to understand their own thinking and so usually get along in life by just sort of repeating what they've heard other people say. It's only when/if you find yourself in a group of people and are forced to explain the whys of your beliefs that the difference becomes apparent.

One could easily make a bunch of SNL sketches along the lines of "a modernist walks into a postmodernist bar" and other combinations. Total miscommunication results because not only do the different *isms pursue different FORMS of truths (e.g. objective vs subjective vs intersubjective) they also pursue them in different ways.

Anyhoo, hopefully this makes it more clear why many "debates" are so futile. For example, imagine a postmodernist preaching tolerance trying to deal with an old-fashioned traditionalist who argues by wielding power. Imagine a modernist explaining a scientific position to a traditionalist who doesn't believe in science or a postmodernist who thinks that science is but an opinion.

The differences are readily apparent but may have to be experienced first hand to appreciate just how different they really are.

--

So with (2), dialectics is great for the postmoderns but a giant waste of time for the moderns, where it's typically clear who has the better understanding of the objective truth; and a complete non-starter for the traditionalists who can just refer to handed-down authority with no need to debate truth.

And with (3), science at least from the modernist perspective is a project and a process in search of objective truth. From that perspective, it's not surprising that it sometimes makes a strategic blunder and takes a turn down a useless rabbit hole that turns out to be stupid in retrospect. Flogiston, anyone? The ether? Career-wise, nobody goes into science for the salary. However, there's definitely more glory in discovering new stuff than verifying old stuff. Mistakes will be made but to a modernist these will eventually be rooted out [by the process]. Traditionalists grudgingly seem to value science in terms of its practical use (i.e. support for engineering and manufacturing) but don't otherwise value it much at all. Postmodernists see science as yet another social construct that they can critique for shits and giggles while taking its practical use for granted.

[7Wannabe5]

Morality to a modernist is acting in accordance with that objective truth. The virtuous person would be the one who could better use reason and that truth to further their goals. Similarly, the moral code for society would be the one that most effectively used reason to make that society more effective at its goals. These are ideas like utilitarianism (the greatest sum of good) or Rawlsian justice (the least worst outcome)...

However, to a postmodernist, reason matters less than sentiment. If something is objectively wrong yet conveys a message, it meets the subjective standard of a postmodernist, because postmodernists insist there's no objective truth [beyond tolerance/acceptance that everybody can have their own truth].

I think one of the reasons I frequently find myself in the position of playing apologist for the post-modern on this forum is that describing the post-modern perspective in a manner that makes it seem "stupider" than the modern perspective only serves to destroy the entire developmental model. For example, if the post-modern or Bohemian creed is "Truth, Beauty, Freedom, Love!" then it is clear that Truth is not being rendered subjective, but rather being considered in relationship to other values, as it also was at previous levels. For example, Moderns bicker over the Truth, but Warriors fight for Honour and Power. I mean it's tone-deaf to commence to rationally debate the truth of the matter when somebody suggest that your mother is a ho. It's also tone deaf to defend such a comment on the basis of its truth, because the conveyance of truthful information does not fully encompass the purposes of human communication. "I feel free!", "I love what you did with your hair.", "The beauty of Einstein's original writing is not conveyed in this textbook."

OTOH, I agree that there is no shortage of Puritanical Traditionalists or even Semi-Magical thinkers wearing the guise of the Post-Modern. For example, anybody who believes that Feynman's hobby of hanging out with strippers detracts from the truth that he conveys about physics is Pre-Modern in their thinking rather than Post-Modern.

It's also the case that those who confuse statistics with science can do a good deal of harm wielding which ever display of "information" best serves their particular druthers or semi-repressed fears like a sword that will cleave Truth. IOW, in many ways Science has now become debased into petty idols worshipped in competing temples for varying purposes. For example, the minor god of endless life for the affluent through science OR the minor god of improving focus on getting things done by means of science. Somebody needs to (or simply is bound to) be the bold youth in the crowd who cries out, "Hey, Old Man with the shaved head stroking on your precious behind your pyrex wall, fuck your minor truth, it's damn Ugly how you are trying to live forever while kids are still starving out here."

[jacob]

As a retired theoretical physicist, I gotta weigh in on this. You guys are talking about two different things.

As an aside, I've heard Eric Weinstein winge about how physics has gone down a weird path since string theory based on a few scientists in high places and he makes it seem unfruitful and disastrous.

The main problem with string theory is that it hasn't made any predictions that can be verified experimentally yet. Lets put this in perspective though. It's been 30 years since string theory first began to become a thing. However, other theories have historically waited a long time for experimental confirmation. Einstein's theory of general relativity came out in 1915 but took four decades (39 years!) before the first confirmation (Mercury's precession) was experimentally solid. Even more years to confirm some of the other predictions. The LIGO-stuff that happened during the end of my personal career was verifying predictions made almost a century before.

At this point, modern science is definitely playing the very long game... not the next quarter bottom line. It should, however, also be noted that science is a very cheap investment compared to what society gets from it. For example, it's been estimated that classical electrodynamics is responsible for something like 25% of the GDP of any modern nation. That's a lot of value originating from the minds of what was but a handful of geniuses whose compensation at the time was very small.

The main question in terms of a strategic vision for theoretical physics is thus: where do we spend the money? what do we focus on? It's possible that string theory has gone down the wrong rabbit hole. Ether and flogiston theory are such cases. Not nearly as bad as the scholastic traditionalism of doing science by memorizing Aristotle's works and spending time applying primitive syllogisms wasted centuries of human brain space, but still. As a theoretical physicist, it's quite possible to make a prediction that goes unverified for many many years.

A good example would be the debate in the 1980s about whether to spend the money building very large and very expensive particle accelerators to explore high energy physics OR spend the money in the meso-sphere researching new materials at the nano-scale. The nano-scale people won out and this is why the world now has fancy microchips and made great leaps in material science ... but is yet to colonize the moon or run around with laser guns or as it pertains here: have the instruments (think CERN x5) to experimentally verify string theory predictions.

Hear, hear. Long before string theory there were Maxwell's equations. These are beautiful equations but they do not model reality. Maxwell himself was aware of it. My university teachers knew it, but they still taught it. The substack Fiat Lux carefully explores the situation.

Engineers tend to ignore theoretical physics, so perhaps not much harm is done. We certainly enjoy excellent wireless communication today.

It might surprise you to know that Newton's laws "do not model reality" either. Yet they're taught anyway. Wait what?! What exactly is going on here? Have the scientists been lying to us engaging in a massive cover up to cash in those massive $30,000/year paychecks available in academia to those who graduated their MSc with an A-average and for some silly reason remain willing to sleep under their desks? Are those professors making a cushy $70,000/year after finally getting tenure at age 40 teaching falsehoods to gullible students? Nahh...

This is actually a good example to illustrate the difference between the different frameworks between scientists (modernists to the core) and non-scientists (a mix between different isms). It would be very helpful to read the wall of text I posted above before proceeding.

Scientists are modernists to the core. Scientists, therefore, do not teach about truth in the "handed down facts" sense of traditionalism. Instead, science is teaching the process of using reason (theory and experiment) in pursuit of an objective truth. This is very different from the engineer or the technician, who just needs a number to plug into their design or machine. They could in principle obtain that from a numeric table in a giant book (like the Machinist's Bible) w/o having any understanding of how those numbers connect with each other. As long as the number works, the engineering is good.

However, the job/purpose of a theoretical scientist is fundamentally to make increasingly better models of objective reality. To make sense of those numbers. Not simply to use them.

How do scientists rank "better"? Through prediction aka experimental verification and validation. A better theoretical model can predict more experimental results both in terms of quality (precision) and quantity (accuracy). A better model gives numbers closer to real measurements over a greater domain range and in more situations. As such the march of science is one towards a single objective truth.

Newton's laws is one such model. It's a better model of reality in every way compared to the previous one of Aristotle which simply stated that "things naturally wanted to be at rest", "naturally wanted to burn", etc. However, while Newton's laws are perfectly good [enough] to launch space ships and send them around the solar system, they give the wrong results at speeds near the speed of light. To explain that required the special theory of relativity.

One extremely important aspect of "the progression of scientific truth" is the generalized correspondence principle, which says that a "better theory" should mathematically reduce to previous theory in the limit. Special relativity does indeed turn into Newton's laws at low speeds. The difference between the "correct" SR solution and the "wrong" Newtonian solution is for most cases on the order of sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)~1/2(v/c)^2~0, that is, zero!

As such, Newton's laws are not wrong. They do indeed model reality, just not all aspects of reality.

(Note how the correspondence principle incorporates the idea of progression towards one single objective truth. Philosophically, modernists are realists in that they believe that there's a non-personal truth of out there than can be discovered. Current scientists believe that this truth exists in the form of equations and math. For those reading this, the correspondence principle in relation to the philosophical concept of realism is the most important part of this diatribe.)

This is why while the engineering profession may care about how the equations they use came about, they're very aware of exactly which parameter space the equations actually apply to. E.g. "Do not use Newton's laws for speeds above 200,000m/s" or some such. I've noticed from my discussions with engineers that when engineers says they understand the science, it doesn't mean the same thing as when scientists says that they understand the science. It doesn't mean that the engineer has worked through the theory and its implications but rather that the engineer knows which equation to apply in what situation. As such scientists and engineers are talking about two difference kinds of understanding: two different ways of knowing. Often w/o realizing this because they each live in their own specialized paradigms.

The scientist understands the why. The engineer understands the where. (Both understand the how and what, plugging numbers into a calculator.)

Same with classical electrodynamics. It explains a lot of things, such as the transmission of radio waves, with practically perfect precision. However, there are also cases where it fails completely. For example, classical ED predicts that atoms basically can't exist. Being accelerated in the orbit around the proton nucleus, according to classical ED the electrons should lose energy by radiation and thus very quickly fall into the protons and become neutrons. This is just one example where classical ED is incomplete. However, quantum electrodynamics, does explain why electrons don't spin into the protons. It also reduces to classical ED in the h>-0 limit as per the correspondence principle.

Note, though, that "better" doesn't imply "more useful" to the engineer. Nobody uses quantum electrodynamics to determine the design specs for the power transformer they're designing even if QED is one of the closest models of reality that human's know. Using QED instead of Maxwell's laws for transformer design is overkill to the point of being ridiculous. Classical ED is good enough for many applications. This is why it's still taught to engineers. Conversely, it is taught to scientists (in their junior year) to show how to build better and better models of reality. Learning QED is still the domain of 4th year physics masochists who are beginning to specialize and branch out (I was one). I'm almost certain that most electrical engineers would never be able to pass that course ... but I also know that they don't need to either. String theory is even harder requiring some 8 years of concentrated study before reaching the starting line.