Reposted as an anthropological curiosity. I’ll leave the bulk analysis as a homework assignment because I’ve already done three textwalls today and I’m pretty tired. A couple of notes to get you started: entrepreneurship requires IQ (frontal, parietal, temporal, or occipital), energy (frontal, parietal, limbic), and ambition (frontal, parietal, limbic). Depression, especially long-lasting and/or suicidal depression, is a thal front thing. People with melon fronts experience depression in a very different way, and only when they want to, and they can shake it off whenever they feel like it.
I will only quote one portion as an example of deepsock-style altruism and ingenopathy:
Nobody cares if I’m anxious about what’s going on [in my company],” he said. “I took money from people, and I feel a deep sense of obligation to get them their money back.
Would a melon fret whether people are getting the best possible ROI? Of course not, and certainly not to the point of exhaustion. A melon cares about his customers’ perception of ROI- in a pragmatic way- but such frivolous “fretting” is not in his nature.
Edit: *Sigh* Okay, one more note. A /. commenter recommended a book of antidepression techniques that sounds promising.
Another thing you can do is avail yourself of one of the better self-help books out there; it’s called “Feeling Good” by David Burns. I highly recommend reading the first 50 pages, minimum, and doing the exercises (about 10 minutes per day) to start; the book is based on years of solid research and is very accessible. The techniques described have been proven in labs all over the world.
The reason I like this book is because the techniques employed are lab tested; it is not a “feel good” book; it’s a book that describes how to deal with the thoughts that cause depression – i.e. cognitive distortions, and how to “talk back” to those distortions in ways that effectively disarm them. Feeling Good is available for about $10 from Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-… [amazon.com]; it is used by therapists all over the world and is probably the most effective book of its kind. btw, this book is also helpful for people who are just going through a rough patch, but are not depressed.
ebusinessmedia1
Start-Up Founders On Dealing With Depression
Last note, really: This phenomenon is going to be more prominent in deepsock entrepreneurs: that is, STEM startups rather than alcohol cartels, internet cartels, strip club owners, and other consumer goods monopolies.
Aeoli Pera 
Could you write something on the 4 lobe IQ types? Interesting concept.
Here’s a starter, and it’s all pretty speculative: https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/why-they-hate-knowledge/
A great deal of my psychological philosophizing is drawn from the multiple forerunner hominid theories expounded by: Texas Arcane (http://vault-co.blogspot.com/), Koanic (http://koanicsoul.com/), and rdos (http://blog.rdos.net/?cat=5).
It can be a bit of a time sink.
Already read that. It’s nice but I would like an even more definitive primer a la Koanic’s face-reading article. Also, you don’t mention the temporal lobe (which I guess is for Starchildren?)
Am deep down the Eden rabbithole already, but rdos was new to me. I thought there was only Koanic, Tex, you, edenismstudy, Eden’s Thaw and now-defunct Excavating Eden. Always cool to see new edenosphere peeps. Kudos.
For me, talking back to self-talk doesn’t really work. My self talk is more like flashes of abstract images, black and white metaphysical truth evaluations, and gut feelings, anyway.
Ditto.
I guess you do the weird koan stuff too? I guess that sort of thing comes naturally to a certain psyche, while for everyone else it seems like gibberish.
For me, CBT-style reframing and metacognition, as mentioned in that book, was the first low hanging fruit when I got into personal dev. Certainly helpful to set a baseline of what sanity should look like. But it’s never offered a complete solution. It never got me to full sanity because my objective metacognitive mind just isn’t that much in control.
For me, causal/objective reasoning like that is certainly useful but it just feels very lacking somehow.
People who get all the way with those tools must have a very different neuro-makeup than me.
Again, ditto.
Haha, I just wrote “for me” three times. I must be very reluctant to make universal sounding statements.
You sound like a humble person with a natural urge to introspection. I like ya already :-).
That’s also a good combination as an intellectual because you can trust your instincts, especially with the question “Is there something bigger/better here?” You’ve probably experienced this: feeling drawn to certain shows/movies/music/books that you don’t quite understand, but you know that with a little repetition and background lore you’ll enjoy it on a completely different level. In contrast, some entertainment just feels hollow.
I should come up with a name for this phenomenon, because it’s been somewhat formative for me. “There’s something else here. Something higher, better.”
Yeah, I always try to glean the esoteric knowledge hidden beneath the obvious.
I am often shocked at how easily people can dismiss concepts which for me trigger existential crisises (crises?)
On the other hand, I have often done foolish things due to my stubborn insistence on exploring things for myself, surface-level ridiculousness be damned. Common sense does not come naturally to me.
Most people seem to reference the world, established “facts”, and other people around them when integrating incoming information. Me, I always reference my internal world. This has hilarious effects when I eg completely misinterpret jokes by referencing some wacky concept I have instead of the simple, common sense-grounded meaning that was intended by the joker (although my interpretation is funnier).
I would say that GFP (http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-natural-selection-of-european.html) types have a major day-to-day life advantage in possessing aforementioned common sense, external referencing, and ability to easily dismiss wacky concepts. They get along well with the world and don’t fret over intangibles. Then again, they can’t really navigate out of their mental fishbowl either. High-P individuals have high variance: very often foolish, delusional and misguided, sometimes brilliant.
My strategy for winning is to accept my natural way of being, but try to train other modes. You just have to find the right koan/reframe to make common sense an acceptable way of thinking. Probably sounds like a hilarious statement to most, but I’m sure you can relate.
That Bruce Charlton guy is definitely going on my blogroll.
“In stable and large scale agricultural societies there was selection for higher intelligence and higher ‘General Factor Personality’ GFP – GFP is what J Phillipe Rushton termed a putative underlying unitary ‘pro-social’ personality trait which can be assumed to underpin the Costa and McCrae Big Five (i.e. High GFP = high Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Openness and low Neuroticism) or Eysenck’s Big Three (i.e. High GFP = high Extraversion and low Neuroticism and Psychoticism).”
I came to this exact same conclusion three years ago when I wrote my “guide to lying on employer personality tests”. I’ll have to dig that up, it’s one of my few useful posts.
>My strategy for winning is to accept my natural way of being, but try to train other modes. You just have to find the right koan/reframe to make common sense an acceptable way of thinking. Probably sounds like a hilarious statement to most, but I’m sure you can relate.
I understand, and I can relate, but after many experiments I’m convinced that this is impossible. I wish there were a pill to make us dumb, happy and productive socialites, but that’s a long way off. So I’ve come to the conclusion that the only winning strategies are to adapt ourselves to society or to leave it.
Fortunately, I think we have the brains to pull off the adaptation part. It’s shocking to me that other than Koanic I haven’t found any resources in my short search, much less comprehensive ones.
>I wish there were a pill to make us dumb, happy and productive socialites, but that’s a long way off.
Why would you even want such a thing?
So there’s 4 IQ types, 3 energy types and 3 ambition types?
Does this mean they can be combined into 36 different personality types?
You could, but such a paradigm wouldn’t be much use because most people are pretty much the same. The whole business of “types” can get pretty messy, and I say this as a big fan of the MBTI.
I just mean that those lobes are (at first glance) primary contributors to the factors I mentioned. But I could try to go deeper by, say, factoring “energy” into metabolism and optimism.
Presenting systematizable categories like that is a form of aspie-sniping, you know (reference to: https://xkcd.com/356/)
Probably best to KISS and only complicate where it actually adds texture to the analysis. not just category overhead.