1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
|
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
* Optimal
* Valuable
* Existent
### Set 2:
* Externalized
* Bad
* Suboptimal
* 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.
|
