Re: The Education of Axel Heyst
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:12 pm
Well, shit, that explains me and my ex-wife.
---an online community leveraging 14 years of experience in resilient post-consumerist praxis
https://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com/
https://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com/viewtopic.php?t=11126
Well, shit, that explains me and my ex-wife.
You'd be surprised. From my perspective more thought went into that statement than the [customary?] "I'm so sorry".
“Suo” wrote: Well, shit, that explains me and my ex-wife.
Lol- I shouldn’t be surprised. One thing I like about this forum is it is pretty much an emotional reactivity dead zone. But, there is also the possibility of emotional responsiveness. As in “ Shit. Fido was a great dog. I’ll miss seeing him bouncing around your backyard. They say a man’s life can be measured by the possibility of 7 dogs. (Hands you a cold beer over the fence) To the era of Fido!”“jacob” wrote: You'd be surprised
Add: This is why translation is important to establish connections between the typological bubbles insofar the overlap is weak. That is, insofar such a connection is desired.
I've had this kind of discussion with DW many times. NT vs SJ. "[The dog has] never [run into the street] before you know." "Yes, but just because you've never broken your leg before, it doesn't mean it's unbreakable."
Just to +1 what Scott said, I rarely have a conversation with an ulterior motive. My model-building is what allows me to have interactions just for the sake of interactions. If I didn't have my model-building capacity, I would be isolated and unable to connect with other human beings. My models are a source of delight for me, because they allow me to deeply connect with other people, 'see' and really listen to them, and get lost in what they have to say - including not just their words but their nonverbal communication, the cues as to their emotions, desires, fears, etc. I find it such a rich experience.Ego wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 9:50 amIf 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?
"Just ask" sounds like good advice, but how do I ask? Could I have better timing when I ask? What circumstances would influence the person who I'm asking to say "yes?" Which would influence them to say no? Under what circumstances am I likely to feel uncomfortable asking? When will asking directly be unlikely to induce a positive response?candide wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:10 pmI 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.
I'd like to distinguish in terms of layers. We can disagree about what those layers are, but for the sake of conversation (I realize that I'm framing the discussion here ... but I also think this is based on physical reality which makes it harder to question), the bottom layer is organs within persons. Push those and sensation signals go to from the organs to the limbic system where they register as emotions(*).Jin+Guice wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:21 pmI have yet to meet a person who has escaped emotions so thoroughly that they are not influenced heavily by them. Someone who makes decisions only by rationality/ logic. I also think this is supported by Kahmen and Tversky's 2 system thinking as well as Haidt's "elephant and rider" analogy.
Your most recent post describes your position more clearly though. First you describe an emotional reaction you have and then talk about how it's not "on script."
There's really not a whole lot of references---this is the only one I know---that describes a framework that completely integrates the individual with society over an entire lifetime which is what I see WL10 as representing. (Note WL10 is still a placeholder for WL9+ ... the table might expand further upwards in v3.0 just like v1.0 expanded upwards.) Many who reach v2WL10 lose their grounding as they ascend into a state of blissheadedness where "everything is wonderful". Others then adopt this as a short cut (spiritual bypass) to avoid dealing with their present issues. In terms of publications this creates a lot of useless noise, which ends up gaslighting a lot of people like the "astrology precariat" and the "yoga bourgeoisie". I consider Plotkin an exception to this rule. Lots of explanations and little to no [quantum] woo. The fact that Plotkin's particular framework (nature-oriented, subpersonality framed) is somewhat incompatible with mine is immaterial. It's possible I just haven't grokked [his framework] yet ("it's me, not you").OutOfTheBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:01 am@Jacob, with the above in mind, it is a wonder (and truly admirable) that you chose Bill Plotkin's Nature and the Human Soul as suggested reading for the top of the new ERE Wheaton scale (level 10).
Thanks for the reply and perspective, Jacob. I look forward to a v3 expansion of the table!jacob wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:36 amThere's really not a whole lot of references---this is the only one I know---that describes a framework that completely integrates the individual with society over an entire lifetime which is what I see WL10 as representing. (Note WL10 is still a placeholder for WL9+ ... the table might expand further upwards in v3.0 just like v1.0 expanded upwards.) Many who reach v2WL10 lose their grounding as they ascend into a state of blissheadedness where "everything is wonderful". Others then adopt this as a short cut (spiritual bypass) to avoid dealing with their present issues. In terms of publications this creates a lot of useless noise, which ends up gaslighting a lot of people like the "astrology precariat" and the "yoga bourgeoisie". I consider Plotkin an exception to this rule. Lots of explanations and little to no [quantum] woo. The fact that Plotkin's particular framework (nature-oriented, subpersonality framed) is somewhat incompatible with mine is immaterial. It's possible I just haven't grokked [his framework] yet ("it's me, not you").
The model as I presented it was not fully described---I have more to add---but the general gist/philosophy is one of constructivism where an individual builds their understanding based on inputs (sensations, emotions, ...) and then build understanding on top of that (feelings, thoughts, ...) and then additional understanding on top of that again (consensus, principles, ...) and again (unity, systems and paradigms).Jin+Guice wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:22 am@jacob: Thanks for explaining this by explaining your model. I don't have anything meaningful to contribute to the model. I'm not sure I ever will, but I need to think about it. This stuff is fascinating to me, so I'm really enjoying thinking about it.
My personal experience is that people with an undeveloped F often say they operate purely from T, but are are so out of touch with their F system they just don't notice it running in the background. These people are often primarily ruled by one emotion, anger or sadness, but always ascribe their actions a "logical" reason.
[...]
I think this is a bit like asking incredulously how an atheist can be moral(?). An ethical system does not need to be based on caring. It can be based on basic respect for the integrity of individuals---and this can be extended to animals, trees, ... as well as whatever one doesn't really care about. One might add the "Golden Rule" (most cultures have something like this). Interesting, F-based caring seems to focus mostly on people who are nearby or related while dismissing people who are far away (sweat shop workers) and completely writing off future generations.
In psychology onto-relation goes by equifinality (wiki accounts only for the 'disease model' of psychology but same would go for positive psychology. See also kinship with systems theory). Also 'many roads lead to Rome'.jacob wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:34 pmEm- is an onto-relation which implies understanding. If I'm empathetic "I understand your perspective on losing your dog." (I lost my dog too, so I'm assuming here.)
[...]
To give another example. A Christian informing an Atheist that "they'll pray for them to [cure their cancer]". The Atheist will not understand it empathetically (in their world, there's no prayer power---the Christian demonstrates no empathetic understanding of the Atheist perspective either) but they might understand the sympathy ("I want to help you solve your problem in the way I know.) and the response should be a "thank you for including me in your prayers"---I can't empathize with you yet I do sympathize with your statement.
From observtion, I am one of the few F-y Fs on the forum, and in my experience, this is incorrect. I agree that both T and F should be developed and that a person who doesn't develop both works with serious limitations (though Ts attempt to make up for the lack in F by developing overly elaborate analytical models). In my experience, however, T and F are not in relation to or in opposition to one another, they are for different things. "Not being ruled by emotion," where "ruled by emotion" is defined as unconscious reactivity, isn't achieved via a well-developed overriding T; rather, it is achieved by learning to hold the F in a certain kind of space. Holding the F in that space transmutes it from reactivity to wisdom. Meditative and contemplative practices aim to develop this process. A person with developed T is intelligent and knowledgeable, and fluent in the use of well-developed complex analytical systems. A person with developed F is wise. Both are necessary.