The Education of Axel Heyst

Where are you and where are you going?
AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

Ego wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:05 pm
In my example above, "chasing a pretty girl around Europe" is whatever it is that one wants to do that does NOT fit into the paradigm/framework/ideology they've built.
Just wanted to highlight that I get your point here, even though I went off on a tangent about the kinds of fun I like/don't like to have.

I think the more I play with paradigms and ideologies, the better/faster I get at noticing when there's friction between my desires and the paradigm, and setting any formal rules I might have down in order to get curious about / explore the desire that 'doesn't fit'. I see it as information to either update or throw out the paradigm/make it a better fit to reality, or more useful, or just a sign to set the framework down for a minute to have fun.

Is it useful to map this to Boyd?

The paradigm/framework/etc is our orientation (or at least is within what Boyd would call our orientation).

Orientation is fed by observation - of ourselves (feelings/responses/desires/etc) and of environment (eyes ears books conversations dreams).

Orientation is that sense-making mechanism that assigns values/meaning to our experiences. Past experiences, worldview, neurochemistry, explicit and implicit thinking and feeling all contribute to the moment by moment created thing that Boyd calls orientation.

I think what we're referring to here as paradigm/canon/ideology is a node cluster of explicit thinking and planning somewhere inside my orientation. When working with a certain set of Observations, I can run that input through that explicit node cluster and see what it suggests I do.

But there are also a bunch of other nodes that sit inside Orientation that take in those same Observations and output other suggestions/reactions.

Through some process, some kind of gestalt of these suggestions floats to the top or gains acceptance in my conscience and I Decide to go ahead with it.

Then I do the thing, thereby modifying environment, which I observe, which informs my orientation, etc.

One way to screw this up is to take forever in between Decide and Act, to just sit inside Orientation. This is because Observation goes stale quickly. Also because Environment is so complex and so difficult to predict, once you get much further than one or two steps into the future it's highly unlikely that your this moment orientation will match your +2steps orientation.

The best way to feed your Orientation, to keep it up to date and accurate, is to be constantly feeding it with rich information which can only be generated by Action. (Of course you also have to pay good attention and have the courage to see what's actually there: humans have an uncanny ability to look reality in the eye and just see a reflection of their own Orientation).

The other way to screw this up is to mistake that explicit thinking cluster of nodes for the whole entity that is Orientation. To reduce decision making to a mechanistic lever based on consciously derived rules. There is much more to Orientation than that node cluster.

So, to state it positively:
-when in doubt, all other things being equal or in any state of uncertainty, bias towards action. Do stuff. Generate new experiences. Feed the hungry Orientation monster. Nom nom.
-Make plans but hold them lightly. Be ready to shift course quickly. As Newport says about making daily timeblock plans, there's no gold stickers handed out for following through with a plan made in the morning that no longer makes sense now that it's the afternoon. Change it to better match current reality!

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

Dave wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 2:30 pm
These forums a certain type of person who is wont to do this, and I wonder how often we overintellectualize life here and prioritize using "the drawboard" to design the perfect set of actions beforehand rather just getting out there, iterating, and learning from those experiences, often in positive ways that we are unable to conceive of in our planning/models.

I'm not saying you're doing this AH - I'm ever amazed at your journey and progress - but I just see strands of it from time to time across the forums, and (most obviously) in myself! It's just a balance worth keeping in mind, because obviously our manner of thinking has hearty benefits as well!
Yes... I think it's quite hard to perfectly nail the under/over intellectualization of life strategy. Like any controls system, it's a matter of stability, acceptable error, negative feedback... people who underintellectualize life too much are planted firmly in Platos cave, they just go along with society or what the voices in their heads tell them. People who overintellectualize life spend their life thinking about life and not actually living life. The object is to think just enough about life such that you're living it how you want to. It's a razor's edge.

User avatar
mountainFrugal
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 07, 2021 2:26 pm

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by mountainFrugal »

We all benefit from people over intellectualizing a majority of the topics on this forum. What is cool is that folks like @AH and @AE (others as well!) then turn around and write about them in coherent ways framed around ERE. For this I am grateful. I can read in depth about topics that are not a personal priority, but are interesting reading someone work through these ideas for their own sake. tl;dr Keep exploring these internal dimensions ya'll.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Ego »

mountainFrugal wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:28 pm
We all benefit from people over intellectualizing a majority of the topics on this forum.
Respectfully disagree 100%. Over intellectualizing is not healthy.

Alan Watts said it best.

A person who thinks all the time
Has nothing to think about except thoughts
So, he loses touch with reality
And lives in a world of illusions

By thoughts, I mean specifically, chatter in the skull
Perpetual and compulsive repetition of words
Of reckoning and calculating
I'm not saying that thinking is bad
Like everything else, It's useful in moderation
A good servant, but a bad master

And all so-called civilized peoples
Have increasingly become crazy and self-destructive
Because, through excessive thinking
They have lost touch with reality
That's to say
We confuse signs
With the real world

User avatar
mountainFrugal
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 07, 2021 2:26 pm

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by mountainFrugal »

I agree with the sentiment of the Watts quote, but I think some over-intellectualizing can be a hobby just like everything else. It might be easy to only ever think about things and not do anything and not experience the world. However, I know that @AH is out there traveling, making lots of stuff and doing lots of other things in the world without over-intellectualizing it and likely not posting it on here. I am glad folks share that stuff on here. Just like anything, if you are ONLY over-intellectualizing everything then that could lead to problems.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Ego »

mountainFrugal wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:19 pm
I agree with the sentiment of the Watts quote, but I think some over-intellectualizing can be a hobby just like everything else.
Hobbies can be harmful. I don't believe it is a coincidence that the afflictions of the so-called civilized peoples that Watts mentions above are those most likely to be mentioned in journals here.

User avatar
mountainFrugal
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 07, 2021 2:26 pm

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by mountainFrugal »

Ego wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:26 pm
Hobbies can be harmful.
Fair point. A razor sharp mind is a dangerous thing when turned on itself. How else to explore these ideas, write about them, share them and then move onto something new? Ignore them completely and live in a blissful ever present now? (this is one tried and true solution which I personally attempt, but there are times when going down the rabbit hole is the only way).

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Ego »

mountainFrugal wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:34 pm
A razor sharp mind is a dangerous thing when turned on itself. How else to explore these ideas, write about them, share them and then move onto something new?
I can't say I have a solution (and definitely not a razor sharp mind) but I can venture a guess that a bunch of individuals prone to encouraging one another to burrow deeper and deeper and deeper down extreme rabbit holes may benefit from someone saying, "Hey, do you think it is possible that this is not healthy?"

Or maybe not. I will shut up now.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Jin+Guice »

I'm having a parallel discussion with @jennypenny in the "life is a daring adventure" thread. It's interesting to me that this discussion is happening in @AxelHeyst's journal bc he is constantly changing her paradigm. I feel like his "pretty girl" is sticking to one thing for awhile or thinking deeply about what his unknown unknowns are, bc he is doing/ has done a pretty good job of changing shit up and trying new stuff. I'm not sure I would advise him to stop changing shit either though...

oldbeyond
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:43 pm

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by oldbeyond »

To me it seems like an oscillation between Mind (reflecting, planning, analyzing, building models) and Being (presence, savoring, spontaneity, awe) is the desirable whole enchilada. Mastering Mind for it’s own sake (it is as much part of Nature/The Universe you know) and to allow Being to wallow in novel/more complex/higher spheres. Like planning a trip and then being deeply present for it or achieving FI and then really smelling the roses. Overthinking or mindlessness is crashing through the rails on either side.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

Ego wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:42 pm
I can't say I have a solution (and definitely not a razor sharp mind) but I can venture a guess that a bunch of individuals prone to encouraging one another to burrow deeper and deeper and deeper down extreme rabbit holes may benefit from someone saying, "Hey, do you think it is possible that this is not healthy?"
I agree. I'm glad and benefit from you being around asking such questions.

I guess my main thing is that we all live in a world that constantly barrages us with a certain narrative about how to live. Every single day, if you do anything other than just stare at a tree, you are doing the dog-paddle through Swamp Consumerland. Buy shit, YOLO, work till you die, shopping therapy, shallow takes on current events, SPORTSBALL, etc. I feel like putting a fair amount of energy into creating and maintaining intentional mental paradigms is one of only a few methods for not drowning in the muck and just going along with it all.

My experience of letting go of the process of gardening my little ecosystem of mental paradigms (which includes frequent contact with reality!) is to slip deeper and deeper into the signs and bedazzlements of this simulacra of a culture that I don't like. Staying just afloat takes a certain output of cognitive energy. Getting ahead of the tide requires greater pushes of effort.

I have friends who seem able to have an authentic experience of themselves without as much intellectualization. I envy them to a degree, but I haven't managed to figure out how they do it. When I attempt to copy what I think they do, I sink. Maybe their construction of mental models of the world is just more implicit or intuitive than mine? So they generate functional models on the fly while interacting in the world, in a way that I can't? Not sure.

I largely credit my mental paradigms as the generative force that gets me out into the real world. I'm kaffic, prone to melancholy, mildly agoraphobic, etc.

Every mental paradigm I've ever spun up for myself includes lots and lots of instructions for getting out into the real world and Doing Stuff. That's pretty much the whole point of my mental paradigms, to get me off my ass and out of my head and into the world.

I think it's this dynamic that can make me a little confused when people encourage me to intellectualize less in order to experience the world more. That often backwards from my experience. The less I think, the less I do, up to a certain threshold that I haven't hit in a very long time. Can I use thinking as an excuse, a place to get lost in and avoid the real world? Totally, and I used to do that a lot when I was younger, but I think I do a pretty good job these days of being able to sense when I'm using thinking as avoidance and when I'm using thinking as my doorway to the world.

The nut I haven't cracked yet is serendipity though, your original point. My plans are often good enough that I have the experience I planned to have, or close to it. I'm not good yet at planning for serendipity. I tend to plan an experience that's more like being on rails - very linear. I'm not so good at delivering myself to a hub and letting the whim of the breeze direct my path from there. Thinking and planning is a requirement for me - otherwise I'll just stay home and read books - but I'm sure I can improve or change up the way I do things.

I'll have to think about it. ;)

---
Okay I thought about it a little:

It might be worth noting that I find the world of humans a generally terrifying and confusing place. When I'm in a situation I don't understand, it scares me. I feel unsafe, and everything in my being screams at me to get somewhere safe. The only way I've figured out how to be out in the world is to use my mind to build mental representations of it that are as accurate as possible so I have some confidence that I understand the risks and consequences I'm dealing with. This is the only way I keep the terror down at a level that allows me to function. I generally don't find the unknown to be exciting or exhilarating. I find it threatening. Now, I enjoy novel experiences... but I need to have a mental representation in place that will assure me that the novel experience I'm about to engage in won't kill me. That I'm not being a doofus and running into traffic.

To be clear, it's not the physical world that scares me, it's the world of humans. I'm terrified of human minds I don't understand. Intellectualization (mental model building based on observation loops) is how I make the world safe enough for me to go be in it. I've done it enough times to be well aware of the trap of spinning off into my own head. It's very important that my mental maps are accurate, and this means I need to frequently check them against reality. My model-building process is a process that mostly operates in realtime with unfolding actions in the world. Observations get incorporated into the model as they occur.

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've not found a durable way around this for myself. Even most drugs actually cause me to shut down even harder, because I lose control of my model-building process.

This is why I think serendipity is hard for me to nail. Any unknown with a social risk profile over some threshold scares me too much and I shut down or freeze up. I love reading stories of intrepid travelers and adventurers, but when it comes to being intrepid or taking risks in circumstances that involve other human beings, my capabilities are low. Not debilitatingly low, but lower than what I perceive to be as average.

Many of my friends are capable of jumping balls-first into social circumstances. I envy them. When I try to visualize copying them, the back of my spine feels like it's trying to pucker. It's a stark fear response. This dynamic is also what I think makes me feel... frustrated? when people tell me to just let go and stop thinking so hard. They (obviously) don't feel the clutching fear I feel, and they have no idea how much work it's taken to get this far in the world. It appears to be fun for them, so it's like they think I don't like fun. Fuck them. I love fun. But mortal fucking terror isn't fun, and it's even less fun when it happens as a result of situations that I know shouldn't trigger terror but do anyways, so on top of being terrified I feel ridiculous.

I do think that the older I get, the easier it is for me to have serendipitous encounters, but that's mostly because the older I get, the larger my library of mental models becomes, so there are fewer and fewer situations I find myself in that are terrifyingly unknown. The larger my library becomes, the less time I have to spend spinning up models are referring to them - it becomes largely intuitive and feels 'natural'. It feels like I have to work very hard to get to a point of intuitive operation in the world that I perceive average/typical (?) people are capable of from the beginning.

This is one of my motivations for traveling: to rapidly add diverse mental models to my library in order to increase the number of situations that I'll be able to experience intuitive low-stress engagement with and, now that you mention it, serendipity.

....

Or, maybe, this was all a bunch of bullshit I thought of while stuck deep in a rabbit hole of my own mind. For what it's worth, I thought up all this stuff while simultaneously Doing Actual Things with My meatBody in the Physical World. :P

ertyu
Posts: 2893
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by ertyu »

AxelHeyst wrote:
Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:17 pm

Many of my friends are capable of jumping balls-first into social circumstances. I envy them. When I try to visualize copying them, the back of my spine feels like it's trying to pucker. It's a stark fear response. This dynamic is also what I think makes me feel... frustrated? when people tell me to just let go and stop thinking so hard. They (obviously) don't feel the clutching fear I feel, and they have no idea how much work it's taken to get this far in the world. ... But mortal fucking terror isn't fun, and it's even less fun when it happens as a result of situations that I know shouldn't trigger terror but do anyways, so on top of being terrified I feel ridiculous.
Hey, I haven't been around these parts in a while but I read your post and this part jumped at me. What about EMDR? It's only money

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
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 »

This reminds me of when smart people tried to find the best algorithm for the prisoners dilemma. Very complicated algorithms were devised. Ultimately, tit-for-tat proved to be the best (or very near the top); and tit-for-tat is also one of the simplest.

There's a simple and effective algorithm for the "human dilemma" as well, it goes a bit like this:
  1. Mirror the opinions and facial expressions/body language of whoever you're presently with.
  2. Ignore self-consistency with previous arguments. (It's normal to have one opinion in one group of friends and another in another group.)
  3. If the present argument sounds logical it's nice, but ... if it doesn't feel right, just ignore the logic (see 1 and 2)
  4. If questioned with logic or facts (remember, these are outside the rules above), project the accusation back on the accuser (out-group). ("I'm rubber, you're glue"-rule. Isomorphic with a crude tit-for-tat rule.)
I bet if you programmed a bunch of GPT3 agents like that and created a swarm, it would sound quite human.

It's probably the most efficient human algorithm, but it is not the most effective. People do get into predictable trouble, but when it happens, it's simply "unfair", "bad luck", or someone else's fault. Which similar people will confirm using the four rules above.

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. It is not even interobjective---interobjective issues are something that get blamed or get fixed by "them".

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@jacob:

Interesting. I have a semi-self-destructive tendency towards doing the opposite. I will argue the libertarian line in a room full of socialists and vice-versa. However, I will usually give myself cover along the lines of "I definitely grok your point of view, but a Libertarian might say..." and then go ahead and say it. Unfortunately, I probably care more about keeping myself amused in the moment (YOLO) than maintaining/creating social capital with a reasonably effective mechanism.

Another more serious note might be that your algorithm reeks of classic feminine training towards being agreeable. So, maybe some slack should be cut for those who make use of it, because might be easiest recourse for the relatively powerless. It has been my experience that those who are most intent on creating or maintaining a power structure in which they are dominant are also most likely to demand full, clear, unambiguous information. So, on some level, small talk and gossip can be revolutionary.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Jin+Guice »

@AH: Damn that existential fear is pretty heavy. I thought you were just like me and were bad at striking up IRL conversations with new randos, but it sounds like you're dealing with something altogether different.

Have you considered some sort of therapy approach exploring your fear? Even if it is self-applied therapy (aka thinking)? To me, it sounds like you're dealing with a form of anxiety, which therapy is a pretty good remedy for.

I think that this is a major contributor to your block on serendipity. The way I think of it, serendipity almost always requires a new social situation, so over coming your fear either through mental models or finding and dealing with the root cause of your fear, I just think you'd gain a lot from that.



@jacob:

Love your social algorithms for dealing with normal people. As I think you know, I've been fascinated by social skills for the past few years, but I've never thought of it as building algorithms. What other algorithms do you have?
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:38 am
Another more serious note might be that your algorithm reeks of classic feminine training towards being agreeable.
I agree with this, but maybe that is the goal of this algorithm, navigating boring social situations with a minimum of friction?

It's also tailored towards Jacob's repeated frustrations with lack of personal responsibility and logical/ personal inconsistency.


Personally I want algorithms for: 1) getting people to do what I want and 2) keeping myself entertained (bc 7w5 and I are actually effectively the same person).

theanimal
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by theanimal »

Jin+Guice wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:24 am
Personally I want algorithms for: 1) getting people to do what I want…
Check out “Influence” by Robert Cialdini. He has another one that may be relevant called “Pre-suasion” but I haven’t read that one.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Jin+Guice »

I've read both those books, but, as always, practical implementation is the difficulty. If only there was a convenient algorithm...

Also, "Pre-suasion" has much more info than "Influence" and summarizes and expands upon "Influence."

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

Ertyu (hi!!!) And JnG: I'm the most pro therapy person whose never done therapy. I wish I'd done it when I was younger. It'd probably be a good idea. I've heard good things about EMDR - it's on my list of things to consider when I get back.

But a couple points:
1) I almost never experience the fear I described above anymore. My life experiences have gotten me comfortable and competent at 99% of the circumstances I find myself in. I had to go to Africa to find a place that triggered fear at that level again... And I now possess the tools to deal with it well and quickly. It can be a bit stressful but I approach it now almost with a sense of play. So, I'm far from debilitated, and anxiety is a state I spend "very* little time in anymore.
2) I've done a LOT of digging into where this fear dynamic comes from. I understand it pretty well. The origin story of this fear, and my model making coping mechanism, makes a lot of sense. Not much mystery anymore. My most recent engagement with it has been using Bill Plotkins framework, which I'm finding really really amazing and it's helping me turn this aspect of myself into a strength, integrated with the rest of my self.

I don't find casual / 'normal' interactions with humans fearful or confusing. I don't need an algorithm for that, or maybe I had one a while ago but it's so internalized now I don't even know it exists. I feel like in most of the social circumstances I find myself in, I understand the subtle dynamics of what's going on better than everyone else involved. Or rather, in a group composed of diverse people (people who think differently, have different personality traits, are from different subcultures), I often feel like the one mind that has the best overall grasp on where each person is coming from. I often notice miscommunication and help 'translate' between other people. It's easy for me to quickly understand what ways of communication a certain person resonates most strongly with, and which rubs them the wrong way.

But still, I agree that this dynamic isn't conducive for serendipity. In the spirit of Ego's original comment... I think I need to test/experiment/play with pushing myself into circumstances that open the door for serendipity. Rather than attempt to come up with a model for generating serendipity first.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
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 »

Jin+Guice wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:24 am
Love your social algorithms for dealing with normal people. As I think you know, I've been fascinated by social skills for the past few years, but I've never thought of it as building algorithms. What other algorithms do you have?
Actually I think you guys (+7wannabe5) may have misunderstood me... and rereading what I wrote, I can see why. What I meant by the algorithm is that it defines how very many [=normal] people behave; not how I deal with them. It corresponds to a concrete/Kegan3 person. For the most part I find that [level of depth and resulting] behavior about as engaging as "furniture"(*). I'm more interested in ideas than people, so people w/o ideas are kinda meh and my lack of apparent interest tends to be quite obvious. Engaging is not free. Maintaining an inventory of small talk, gossip, and events comes at a cost and the ROI is not worth it [to me]. I don't find it in myself to fake it beyond a minimum level of effort.

(*) About the same level of excitement that a normal person has when it comes to algebra, say.

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 wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:23 pm
If only there was a convenient algorithm...
"Get people to do what you want" has a lot of competition, a lot more than "not cause offense." Anything really effective, convenient, and available to everyone is going to be snatched up, making for a less valuable strategy. That only leaves difficult strategies.

Here's one that works pretty well, but is pretty hard to execute:

1. have the highest social proof
2. perform frequent loyalty tests
(2a). frequent so we getting used to saying yes (the yes ladder)
(2b). loyalty test -- play fast and loose with your facts, contradict key principles, at first as little acts, but then flaunt doing so. . . This one hacks into the "not cause offense" algorithm.
3. get rid of dissent -- easiest method is social isolation, as this will make legible who does and does not have social proof.
4. Get what ever you want from whoever remains. The higher the social proof, the higher percentage will remain.

If you already have the highest social proof, this is very convenient. The harder question then becomes how to get there. This I would not know as it is usually my lot in life, and frankly my choice, to be the dissent that leaves in step 3.

Jacob deserves praise for not using his social proof to engage in this type of persuasion. No loyalty tests here, praises be our fortune.

Post Reply