Notes: Maladaptation: new

1 files changed, 204 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/notes/intellectual_maladaptation.mdwn.mdwn b/notes/intellectual_maladaptation.mdwn.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..316270e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/notes/intellectual_maladaptation.mdwn.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+# Maladaptation
+
+Some people live with an intellectual framework that was at one point
+necessary for them to stay alive and functional in an environment of
+emotional torment.
+
+The intellectual framework is fairly simple:
+
+### Set 1:
+
+* Internalized (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalization )
+* Good
+* Valuable
+
+### Set 2:
+
+* Externalized
+* Bad
+* Worthless
+* Non-existent
+
+Members of set 1 are conflated, members of set 2 are conflated, and sets
+1 and 2 are a binary dichtomy.
+
+The interesting implications of "internalized" and "externalized"
+largely involve motivation, and lead us to see some examples of how
+this framework, even if applied coherently, is a maladaptation.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+## Scenario 1 (simple):
+
+> Billy has the maladaptive intellectual framework. Billy is using a
+> tool that belongs to Tom. Tom asks for it back.
+
+In this scenario, there is a difference of motivations.
+
+1. Billy is motivated by Billy's use for the tool
+2. Tom is motivated by Tom's use for the tool
+
+With the maladapted intellectual structure, Billy can classify each of
+these motivations into the conflated sets described earlier. Obviously
+the motivations can't both be internalized/good/valuable, as that would
+be a paradox, so, we get choices.
+
+* A. Billy's motivation is bad/worthless/nonexistent, Tom's motivation is
+     good/valuable.
+
+     In choice A, Billy has a number of sub-options, all of which are
+     self destructive:
+
+   1. Billy himself is worthless/bad/nonexistent, and thus becomes
+      suicidal.
+   2. Billy's values underlying his motivation are
+      worthless/bad/nonexistent, and thus "never mattered". If his values
+      ever had mattered, that would reflect poorly on Billy himself. The
+      values would be sacrificed to save the life.
+   3. Billy's motivation is worthless/bad/nonexistent, and thus "never
+      happened" or was really someone else's. If his motivation ever had
+      existed, it would reflect poorly on his values. The motivation
+      would be sacrificed to save the values.
+
+
+* B. Billy's motivation is good/valuable, Tom's motivation is
+     bad/worthless/nonexistent.
+
+     In choice B, Billy has a number of sub-options, all of which are
+     destructive to Tom:
+
+   1. Tom's motivation is worthless/bad/nonexistent. Billy says "you
+      don't *really* want it back."
+   2. Tom's values underlying his motivation are
+      worthless/bad/nonexistent. Billy says "you're stupid for wanting
+      to do that"
+   3. Tom is worthless/bad/nonexistent, in which case Billy's conception
+      of reality would be much simpler with Tom removed from it.
+      Actually *killing* Tom would typically require even more
+      discomfort, so this would settle to mere extremely overt hostility
+      unless more uncomfortable circumstances force the situation
+      (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser )
+
+* C. Both motivations are bad/worthless/nonexistent.
+     This position has the property of requiring more intellectual
+     discomfort and work to hold than the others, and is thus unlikely.
+
+In essence, the conflict in Billy's intellect forces Billy and Tom to
+either internalize eachother by destroying bits of themselves, or become
+enemies. There is no middle ground, regardless of whether or not Tom
+thinks there should be.
+
+Now, of course, real people typically have more complex motivations than
+this, and iterating and negotiating them and how they relate to
+eachother is all quite uncomfortable, so a
+high-functioning-but-still-maladapted Billy might come up with a clever
+alternative option to avoid the conflict:
+
+* D. The tool itself is bad/worthless/nonexistent.
+
+This may play out either as criticism of the tool or with intentional
+destruction of the tool.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+## Scenario 2 (proxied):
+
+> Frank has the maladapted intellectual framework. Frank's friend Bert
+> is starting a farm. Frank has strong opinions on environmentalism,
+> organic farming, and animal welfare. Frank reads up extensively on
+> farming and decides to help Bert plan the farm, successfully
+> convincing him to be environmentally responsible, nutritionally
+> informed, and slaughter-free. Bert implements the plans, and finds he
+> doesn't have enough economy of scale to break even. Bert finds an
+> investor, meatpacker Kurt, to help Bert expand threefold with the
+> agreement that Bert allow Kurt to raise and slaughter animals on the
+> farm so long as Kurt do so with a mind towards environmentalism,
+> nutrition, and the welfare of the animals. Frank is angry that the
+> farm he helped plan is now a slaughter farm.
+
+In this scenario, there are more motivations:
+
+1. Frank the activist is motivated by ethical farming.
+2. Bert the farmer is also motivated by ethical farming.
+3. Kurt the meatpacker is motivated by a securing his future in meat.
+
+And there are more complicated dynamics:
+
+* Kurt believes everyone's interests are empowered by the agreement.
+* Bert believes everyone's interests are empowered by the agreement.
+   * Kurt is better equipped to secure Kurt's future.
+   * Bert is better equipped to secure Kurt's future.
+   * Bert is increasing the scope of his ethical farming,
+   * Kurt is increasing the ethicality of his meatpacking.
+* Bert cannot internalize both his own motivation and Kurt's motivation,
+  but has no problem conceptualizing a reality in which both motivations
+  are allowed to exist.
+* Frank cannot internalize both his own motivation and Kurt's
+  motivation, and is completely unable to conceptualize a reality in
+  which both motivations are allowed to exist.
+* Frank furthermore cannot possibly understand where he and Bert
+  disagree.
+
+So then we have options of what gets sacrificed in Frank's maladapted
+intellect:
+
+* A1: Frank
+* A2: Frank's values
+* A3: Frank's motivation
+* B: Bert (whose values and motivation are identical to Frank's)
+* C1: Kurt
+* C2: Kurt's values
+* C3: Kurt's motivation
+* D: The Farm
+
+Which you can creatively fill out outcomes for.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+## Scenario 3 (pathological):
+
+> Ricky has the maladapted intellectual structure. Lilly enjoys talking
+> about her art hobby.
+
+> * Ricky: "Why should I be interested in art? I think art is bad."
+> * Lilly: "I, personally, find joy in creative acts."
+> * Ricky: "I do not enjoy it. I do not think I should be interested in
+>          art."
+> * Lilly: "There are lots of other things to like about it. Color,
+>          form, patterns, technique and expressing visual ideas."
+> * Ricky: "You're wrong. I have more important things to do than art."
+
+Here is the simplest and most pathological example of maladaptation.
+Un-internalized motivations of others, regardless of context, cause
+intellectual anxiety merely by existing. Lilly argues about whether or
+not something is good in a broad context, Ricky argues about whether or
+not something should be internalized. Each thinks they are being
+attacked and neither understands why the other is doing it. Lilly learns
+to avoid Ricky and other intellectually maladapted people like Ricky,
+and Ricky learns to avoid (externalize/devalue) Lilly and other
+intellectually typical people like Lilly.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+## Notes:
+
+There are various wider conflict avoidance strategies which may be
+employed:
+
+1. Aggressively attacking unshared values and motivations wherever they
+   come up. This strategy becomes more tenable with social power.
+2. Passively internalizing the values and motivations of others,
+   replacing existing values and motivations as necessary. This is a
+   tenable strategy for those who are powerless.
+3. Adopting consistent and unassailable values and motivations from
+   which to legitimately justify the position that all externalized
+   entities are worthless before they are even enumerated.
+   (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) )
+4. Attracting like-minded maladapted people, eager to share values and
+   motivations.
+5. Alienating non-maladapted people before their values and motivations
+   even manifest.
+6. Hiding.
+
+All of these are far simpler in theory than they are in practice.
+
+And, of course, there are a variety of approaches if a coherent reality
+is no big priority, including apathy, ignorance, and all manner of
+self-deception/internal contradiction/doublethink.