diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'notes')
| -rw-r--r-- | notes/intellectual_maladaptation.mdwn | 202 |
1 files changed, 202 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/notes/intellectual_maladaptation.mdwn b/notes/intellectual_maladaptation.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 0000000..747224e --- /dev/null +++ b/notes/intellectual_maladaptation.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ +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. |