The Education of Axel Heyst

Where are you and where are you going?
Scott 2
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Scott 2 »

AxelHeyst wrote:
Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:17 pm
In other words, I don't - can't? - jump headfirst into an unknown social world. I have to slip in quietly and steadily increase my level of engagement over time, in pace with the quality of my mental models. No mental model, no engagement.
I rely heavily upon mental models as well. In my experience, while it's possible to force myself into situations without them, the price is a deep withdrawal into my energy reserves. I'll spend the entire time in a heightened state of arousal, building my model on the fly. Then a day or two of decompression is required, where my brain is occupied with refining and rebuilding that model.

If the time is not made, frustration builds, until I feel overwhelmed and miserable. My brain is constantly spinning, trying to recover an impossible amount of modeling debt. This isn't a matter of try harder, it's just how I'm wired. I am much happier honoring and respecting that. Measured by an objective external metric - it makes me less. Internally though, I am much happier and enjoying life.

If I'm totally honest - building those mental models is one of the most gratifying things I do. I derive a lot of joy from obsessing over every tiny detail. Since models do better with feedback loops, I will sometimes abort that process, and just try something. There I am intentionally incurring the energy withdrawal, with an understanding that I'll need to pay it back. But I have no illusions about the price. And I'm not convinced it makes me happier.

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

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by prudentelo »

That's right

I never really cared about people doing what I want,because most people are worse at things than me, and dealing with them consumes time and patience

But I sometime worked out that people that wanted me to do things for them rynning exactly that script, almost always.

Down to boil room phone scammer, up to level of governments. Sometimes it worked, but less often now.

Often on other side the question is how to get off this script and into "actual deal making" (point of the script is something for nothing)

Unfortunately many people dont have that ability, so no agreement is possible

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2117
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

Scott2 - yes! I experience that modeling debt / energy balance dynamic exactly as you described. Also the gratification of the process. Some people build model train sets, some people build ships in bottles... I build mental models of all of the minds and groups of minds I'm in contact with. It's either that or whiskey, so...

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

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by candide »

@prudentelo

Over the last 15 years or so, I have noticed the break down of reciprocity and the skills that go with it. People just keep running charisma and seduction scripts and then just flounder against those it doesn't work on.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6357
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Ego »

Scott 2 wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:44 am
This isn't a matter of try harder, it's just how I'm wired.
AxelHeyst wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:18 am
It's either that or whiskey, so...
Is this wiring permanent? Can it be rewired? Could exposure change the wiring?

Obviously there is no reason to rewire if you are happy with things as they are. Is it something you would rewire if you had a magic wand? Alex, would you change the either/or need for whiskey?

No need to answer. Food for thought.

Scott 2
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Scott 2 »

Since @ego quoted me - My wiring is permanent. Exposure evolves the library of models, but it does not change my underlying nature. I shared my experience, because what Axel describes is so similar. I wasted far too much energy fighting it, convinced everyone else does the same. It's not true.

Some people find a baseball game relaxing. I'm leaving with a stress induced migraine. The experience is not worth it. Those same people want to be in a crowd. It literally energizes them. Meanwhile, I'd rather sit by myself than attend a party. Half a dozen people is the limit, and I'd better already know most of them.

Recognizing and accepting one's nature makes life so much better. I think Axel is on the right track here.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Jin+Guice »

@AH: Ah, I thought you were saying that fear of the unknown was keeping you from having experiences that are serendipitous? But it sounds like you have it under control, so what is hindering the serendipity?
candide wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:07 pm
"Get people to do what you want" has a lot of competition
Eh, does it? What if I just want them to get breakfast with me?

I meant more like in the moment, not establishing a cult where I'm able to control of everyone's whole lives.

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

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by candide »

@Jin+Guice

I would say if "just ask" isn't working, then there probably there is competition.

I think more information is needed. Are you just saying you know a lot of flakes? Even then, yeah. . . having a ton of social proof, up to having a cult would make it easier for them to show up to breakfast.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6357
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Ego »

Scott 2 wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:41 pm
My wiring is permanent.

Meanwhile, I'd rather sit by myself than attend a party. Half a dozen people is the limit, and I'd better already know most of them.

Recognizing and accepting one's nature makes life so much better.
If you had a magic wand and could change that nature, would you? If you lived in an alternate reality where it wasn't permanent wiring but a skill to be learned, would you be interested in learning it? If you could attend a party full of people you do not know and you could actually enjoy the experience, would you see any benefit to being that person?

Scott 2
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Scott 2 »

Ego wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:15 pm
If you had a magic wand and could change that nature, would you?
In my framework, the question asks - would you erase part of your identity, to better conform with the norms rewarded by society?


I tried, for decades. Low social tolerance has always been my biggest constraint.

I learned to put on a show. I won't be the life of the party, but I can carry a conversation. I memorized and practiced the rules. I played the game.

It never changed my underlying physical response. Even when I have fun, the effort exhausts me.

Honestly, when I get tired of playing, my preference is to walk away. No goodbyes, I just leave. I might like each of you, but it's tiring to enjoy all of you. From what my Mom says, I even walked out of my early birthday parties. Presents? Cake? Not worth it.


If I were offered the magic wand at 20, I'd have used it without question. Maybe even at 30. I felt a deep insecurity and was trying desperately to plug the holes. Enjoying others would've offered more of everything - money, connections, power. It was always about the rewards.


Now, at 40? I'm less sure. I enjoy the person I've become. My life is simple, but gratifying. I have enough. I dropped the relationships that required me to mask. While there are far fewer people in my life, these days, I am who I am. After decades of pretending, that feels really good.

The magic wand would lead down a much different path. While it might be more remunerative, I don't know that it'd be better. Especially if we're realistic about the additional demands a more social person carries. I am happy to skip the party. I don't want to be the center of attention. In many ways, that's easier.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2117
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

Jin+Guice wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:16 pm
@AH: Ah, I thought you were saying that fear of the unknown was keeping you from having experiences that are serendipitous? But it sounds like you have it under control, so what is hindering the serendipity?
I'm somewhat guessing, but I think it's the speed at which I'm comfortable integrating into new social situations. aka, slowly. It seems right that the faster you can generate new/novel social interactions, the more opportunities for serendipity you will generate.

If right, it would behoove me to figure out how to speed up my social insertion (heh) speed, aka how to engage in new social dynamics quickly. I think I probably have it in me without much effort, I just need to expend some intentional effort building up a practice of it. I just need to try trying, in other words.

AnalyticalEngine
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:57 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AnalyticalEngine »

jacob wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:09 am
The reason it works is that the rules contain no meta-awareness of the rules themselves. There's zero introspection needed. Put it in other words, the algorithm is entirely intersubjective. It is not subjective and it is not objective.
This strikes me as the reason subpersonalities are offered as a therapeutic tool. If behavior is entirely intersubjective, a technique to notice it within yourself is to deliberately project the behavior onto something else. This projection of the intersubjective components of one's behavior becomes a sort of mirror to see things one would have never seen before because the rules contain no meta-awareness.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@AE:

Great insight. It’s also helpful in noticing your projections.

@jacob:

I knew you meant other people (not you!) performed that algorithm. I was just suggesting some reasons you might want to cut them some slack for being lame like that.

@AxelHeyst:

I used to hate cocktail party like environments when I was young, but now I am pretty much oblivious to them. I think this is mainly due to learning how unhappy, insane, or otherwise fucked up most humans are once you get to know them.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by jacob »

AnalyticalEngine wrote:
Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:42 pm
This strikes me as the reason subpersonalities are offered as a therapeutic tool. If behavior is entirely intersubjective, a technique to notice it within yourself is to deliberately project the behavior onto something else. This projection of the intersubjective components of one's behavior becomes a sort of mirror to see things one would have never seen before because the rules contain no meta-awareness.
Nice! This also explains why subpersonalities doesn't work for me. My intersubjective arsenal is entirely model-based, so I don't know Ann, Bob, and Carl as much as I know (F41, Kegan4, ENFP, formal, ...), (M55, Kegan3, ESTP, conventional, ...), and (M19, Kegan2, INTP, systemic, ...).

This might also pertain to some of what AxelHeyst and Scott2 has said about model building of social dynamics(?)

For me MBTI was a shift in intersubjective thinking. The naive intersubjective [theory of mind] assumption is that "everybody is like me". This works if the "me" is normal. However, insofar one has been blessed/cursed with e.g. a high degree of logic-based introspection, which is relatively rare in humans, the presumption that "everybody is like me" is mistaken. Something that becomes apparent as one grows up.

However, for minds closer the norm of humanity, the presumption of bijection of mindspaces holds up---all a person has to do is to add slight variations explaining other persons' quirks(*) ... but otherwise the mental operations can be assumed to be analogues.

In this language, this is where subpersonalities pop up. This then becomes a surjection: There's subjective understanding of one's own person. The presumption that other minds are variations of one's subjective understanding of oneself. E.g. the "warrior" is a braver version of myself---my own subjective sensation of bravery dialed up. The "planner" is myself with a better executive function, etc.

But lets say I'm trying to understand emotional behavior in others despite not having much subjective experience of emotion in myself. In this case I can not construct an emotional subpersonality from a variation of something I know---because I don't have much to build it on. This is where the subpersonality strategy doesn't work. And this is where the categorization-type theories shine.

In that regard, the categorization-type theories provides an [objective---basically the behavior I can see in others] meta-awareness where little or no subjective awareness exists.

Of course, running this theoretical machinery is mentally hard. One has to remember who the other person is and calculate what they would say or do. "What would I do in this situation" does not work. For outliers, talking to one other person operates at the Compute state. Talking in a group operates at the Coordinate state. Being the life of the party is at the Create stage. Whereas for normies, every situation operates at the Copy, Compare, and Compile stage.

(For example, it takes me much longer to get comfortable in a group of normal people than it does with just one normal person. Also, if I'm in a group with EREmites, I actually can be if not the life of the party then at least quite mingly.)

With experience, e.g. sales or management or another outgoing activity, one may become unconsciously competent at the calculate and coordinate thought. Ditto with familiarity with the people in the room. Whereas an engineering-type or a younger person is at best consciously competent but more likely consciously incompetent (wall flower). (The unconsciously incompetent tend not to be invited again.)

Summary: Each theory is simply a way to make a connection from where someone is subjectively. The theory must fit the subject. (This is also why there are so many different therapeutic methods.)

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6357
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Ego »

jacob wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 8:24 am
Of course, running this theoretical machinery is mentally hard. One has to remember who the other person is and calculate what they would say or do. "What would I do in this situation" does not work. For outliers, talking to one other person operates at the Compute state. Talking in a group operates at the Coordinate state. Being the life of the party is at the Create stage. Whereas for normies, every situation operates at the Copy, Compare, and Compile stage.
Is it the chicken or the egg with regard what AxelHeyst and Scott2 said above? Is it the constant (conscious) calculation demanded by the use of mental models that makes interaction exhausting?

If there was no models and no agenda, would it be easier? If the person approached a conversation with no need to impress, no need to convince, no need to entertain - just an interest in interaction for the sake of interaction - would the cognitive costs be less?

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

In my opinion, one of the luxuries of early retirement is that we no longer operate in a world where every conversation has strict goals and objectives. Is the mental model approach an extension of the working world where the need to be effective, efficient and productive gets extended into every facet of life? Once trained in the commodification of conversation, is it possible to lose the ability to simply enjoy a meandering conversation?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

jacob wrote:despite not having much subjective experience of emotion in myself
One of the purposes of therapy can be getting in touch with your emotions. Why would anybody in their right mind (operating from the rational) want to do that? Because it will add more depth to your life experiences.

Scott 2
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Scott 2 »

Ego wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 9:50 am
If there was no models and no agenda, would it be easier?
Then there is no conversation. Absent an idea or goal, others become objects. The impulse to connect short circuits.

My model free communication does not consider feelings. Barring rare individuals, those interactions do not work. The exceptions are either similarly wired, or so deeply empathetic, that they intuitively compensate.

Speaking for myself - there's something different. I used to say missing. But connecting with others works differently for me, than the majority of the population. Expecting otherwise is to hold an impossible standard. It's like asking someone who's 5' 3" to dunk. The mechanics aren't there.

This is not to say I'd prefer total isolation. Rather - there's a gap in the wiring. I have to bridge it somehow. Doing so is expensive.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by jacob »

Ego wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 9:50 am
If there was no models and no agenda, would it be easier? If the person approached a conversation with no need to impress, no need to convince, no need to entertain - just an interest in interaction for the sake of interaction - would the cognitive costs be less?
There are certainly those who speak whatever thoughts come to their mind without thinking first. No thinking about whether they will be understood, whether whatever they're saying is relevant, or whether it even makes sense. I imagine this complete lack of filtering or translating is cheap in mental cycles. It only succeeds insofar other people are having similar thoughts in which case the thoughts are just echoed around. People saying stuff on their mind. And if more people do it, it's kinda like the herd mind is talking. This isn't much of a conversation because people are not deliberately reflecting on what the others are saying---they might not even reflect on what they're saying themselves. But again, if their minds and thoughts are similar, it works.

If their minds and thoughts are dissimilar, some translation is required. The translation can either happen at the speaker end or the listener end. If you're in the minority (in terms of mind and thought), it's usually wiser to be the one doing the translating whether it's speaking or listening. Otherwise the majority will just ignore you.

I think this is what us model-builders eventually realize. That if we are to make any connection with more normal people we need to learn to speak their language and learn how to interpret what they mean when they're talking. Otherwise, there's no interaction, just independent actions.

(In Kegan terms. Kegan2 is easy but not very effective. Kegan3 only works for the in-group while excluding all out-groups. Kegan4 requires learning >1 groups in order to become the in-group when required. This is more mental work. Kegan5 requires integrating in-groups and out-groups to avoid exclusion. It gets harder and harder but also accomplishes more and more.)

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by jacob »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 10:06 am
One of the purposes of therapy can be getting in touch with your emotions. Why would anybody in their right mind (operating from the rational) want to do that? Because it will add more depth to your life experiences.
It's probably more accurate to say that I have no idea how strongly other people feel their emotions(*). However, regardless of strength I simply don't act on feelings to any great extent. Being maxed out on NT, there's a "system of the world"-construct to determine behavior. In other words, my behavioral construct has been built deliberately ... and it mostly doesn't include feelings.

(*) But I can of course speculate. Physiologically it seems like different people might be wired differently. Consider e.g. pain tolerance. However, I wouldn't know how to differentiate between a very disciplined mind and simply not feeling it. To illustrate, tolerance towards hot peppers can be developed (and undeveloped). Thus chili pepper of a fixed strength can definitely cause different levels of pain in the same person based on tolerance.

(It's probably helpful to distinguish between emotion and feeling. Emotion is the bodily sensation, e.g. hungry, happy, and most emotions are closely wired to various organs via the limbic system that sits right on top of the brain stem. Feeling, e.g. jealousy, confidence,... is our interpretation of these [sets of] emotions.

Approximately half the population prefers to run their O/S on feelings while the other half on run their O/S on reason.

For the latter to truly experience the former in the same way the former does, they would have to shunt out their reasoning-systems(*). For example, my blood sugar is low. My stomach and various other organs communicates the hunger-emotion to my limbic system. Instead of my regular O/S going "low blood sugar is not a critical problem; in the modern world dinner will be served 3 hours from now; and being hungry for a few hours is actually healthy", a feeling-based O/S would go "a cookie would taste so good right now and make the unpleasant emotion go away so I'll have one".

In political discussions, one can sometimes see how the two different systems process things entirely different, e.g. "I can follow and verify all this rationally, but it simply doesn't feel right, so I refuse to accept it".

(*) Actually that is but the simplest way to "understand it". However, integrating both systems is much much harder. One way to see a person is their respective Kegan levels for T- and F- respectively. For example, in terms of T-considerations, I'm pushing Kegan5 given how I can see where various people are coming from and why they're coming from those places and find a way to bridge them. Whereas for F-considerations I'm more like Kegan1 or 2 at best: I'll act on crude personal physiological emotions and I have an idea of well-being (e.g. good physical health, moving well, etc.) but how other people feel about something (or how their feelings might change relative their environment or others in the company) does not concern me as much. A good example might be if someone trips and falls. First words out of my mouth might be "Are you hurt or injured?" .. and if the answer is "hurt" my response is "okay not injured, no problem, just walk it off" (this is what I'd do myself, walk it off). Whereas an F-based O/S would translate the emotions of surprise, empathy, and fear into "OMG! Are you alright?!?" Thus T cares about whether any bones are broken .. F cares about whether it feels bad.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@jacob:

Yeah, but you likely wouldn’t appreciate it if you told me your dog died, and I said “Shake it off. Fido only behaved like he loved you because you gave him kibble. Plus you were wasting a lot of money on vet bills.”

Post Reply