Thal life trajectory; T-back intelligence is specialized for puzzle-like activities

Caution! The organization of this post is stupid and I’m not fixing it.

Specifically the kind with a bunch of pieces you put together. Please don’t mistake this for saying that thal-backs tend to be puzzle enthusiasts- they eventually tend to fixate on very particular activities to the exclusion of most others, and it’s rare that this activity is specifically puzzles. Personally, I think they are unforgivably boring and an egregious waste of time. But if a T-backed guy really got into puzzles, he would probably become the best in the world pretty quickly. This is true for other activities that are like puzzles, and the more puzzle-like the activity is, the more likely it is that a T-back will quickly become very good at it. Furthermore, an unsupervised T-back will approach every activity in a decidedly puzzle-like manner.

This leaves an open question: what sort of environment produces this sort of person? I don’t know whether “cold” accounts for all of it.

The fascination with a particular puzzle-like activity occurs during thal adolescence, roughly from 16-30. This overlaps somewhat with the earlier period (12-25) during which they ought to be learning survival skills. Most importantly, how to do organized violence with a group of tribal males (ideally, both megafauna and other male hominids), though this is dysfunctional in the modern environment (this single-track, task-based shop talk doesn’t mesh well with attention-deficit, deception-based crom socializing, which is learned at the same 12-25 period of life). Since I’m already halfway there, I might as well delineate my intuitions on life trajectory:

0-15: General development, impressionable absorption of broad spectrum of knowledge and skills
12-25: Male peer group development, learning the art and craft of violence (individual and organized)
16-30: Ego development, appearance of singular fascinations and genius
25-30: EITHER courtship and progression to family life OR continued isolation and development of specialized genius (depending on female mating choice, moreso in late-era Amuds and less so in throwback Mousterians)
30-50: General adulthood, child-rearing and provision
50-70: Middle age, legacy-building
>70: Old! Such wisdom, respect your elders :-D. Should be spent writing down life lessons and passing on skills to youngsters.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Thal life trajectory; T-back intelligence is specialized for puzzle-like activities

  1. Edenist whackjob says:

    Yes, they are systemizers.

    Putting together a jigsaw puzzle is one example, but it’s not very fulfilling. I think that kind of thing (along with doing crosswords or collecting stamps or whatever) is a lower form of systemizing. It’s systemizing-for-the-sake-of-systemizing.

    Imagine some kind of 11-dimensional jigsaw puzzle, where the solution can be resolved in multiple ways and where there is categories and taxonomies and endless potential to keep building and sorting, and you have Thal crack.

  2. Edenist whackjob says:

    “Furthermore, an unsupervised T-back will approach every activity in a decidedly puzzle-like manner.”

    Yes. This is a failure mode. Eg spending years trying to figure out “pick-up”. Good koan for that: before you treat something as a puzzle, try approaching it as a melon (or crom) would. Probably you will get bored and find something more worthy to systemize.

  3. Edenist whackjob says:

    Here is my own list of intuited imprint points, based on my own life:

    0-6 – Golden age of childhood wonder. Supplies a reservoir of dreaming throughout later life. There is always a yearning to get back to this.

    7-9 – Trauma from entering first regimented environment (school), first realization that one is different from the other kids, internalization of weirdo status, although functional and teacher’s pet because hasn’t reached puberty so no real need to fit in to the matrix or do self-development for status. Kid is a little professor who reads science fiction and science journals.

    12-14 – Realization of loser status in sociosexual matrix, start of downward spiral

    16-20 – Interest in survivalism and libertarianism

    18-22 – Possible onset of mental illness. Onset of psychotic creativity (Charlton).

    20-30 – Entering self-development rat-race due to lack of mate prospects. See self-worth as a puzzle to be solved. Drive to do science and for exploration spent on Tim Ferriss and pick-up. Construction of a world-view that lets one become genuinely distanced (ie Sigma) from society and Not Give A Fuck.

    25-30 – Dropping out from crom rat-race, deciding to Not Give A Fuck, realizing that a lot of money can be made by being smart and cashing in on something popular that the normals (including the mid-smart tier of academics and marketers and such) cannot perform reliably (ie programming in this day and age). Attaining enough socio-sexual success that one becomes bored with it, and decides to return to the things one was interested in as a child.

  4. Edenist whackjob says:

    Random idea: there ought to be a kind of rule-of-thumb scale which states what each IQ level should be able to do.


    80 – can do simple tasks as directed
    90 – fit for simple self-directed work
    100 – can mind a store
    110 – can get a tax form right on the first try
    115 – can write a simple academic paper
    120 – can get a master’s degree
    125 – can write a simple program
    135 – can reason abstractly about $insert_range_of_thoughts
    145 – can understand advanced programming concepts, can understand all major philosophers


    My list is just pulled out of my hinie, but you get the point.

    • Heaviside says:

      I’ve seen enough people who I would guess have 145+ IQs fail to understand philosophy that it clearly isn’t sufficient. Too many of them adopt worldviews and blinkered ways of thinking that are anti-philosophical. (I was one, once)

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        What are some typical concepts of philosophy that they do not get?

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        I’ve seen bits and pieces of your philosophical thought here and on the NH. Would you mind attempting to write a summary of them? Or maybe you have done so already?

        For safety’s sake, attempt to write it with a midwit in mind.

      • Heaviside says:

        “Mere ingenuity is the semblance of spirit and veils its absence.”

        Many people seem to think of universals as just another variety of particulars which belong alongside their own particular manifestations.

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        “Many people seem to think of universals as just another variety of particulars which belong alongside their own particular manifestations.”

        Can you unpack that a bit? Don’t really get it.

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        “Mere ingenuity is the semblance of spirit and veils its absence.”

        What does that mean? Something like “novel manifestations are just variations of an underlying form, so look beyond the particulars”

        Sorry, that’s how far my parsing gets me. I assume there is some really Deep Truth layered in those words. If you will, do unpack :)

      • Heaviside says:

        >What does that mean?

        I just meant to reiterate what I said about IQ and philosophy.

        Explaining universals is tricky. I definitely can’t do it without getting some sleep first.

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        “Explaining universals is tricky. I definitely can’t do it without getting some sleep first.”

        Okay. I look forward to it.

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        Aeoli: why don’t let you some of the fellow inmates from the NH have guest writer access on here? Tex and Koanic are best left to their own, and the Neanderhall is the big town square, but this place is kind of like the backroom schmooze hall of the neandersphere anyway.

      • Heaviside says:

        Just read the first chapter of the Phenomenology for a lengthy explanation.

        People formulate the problem of universals incorrectly when they say that first there are particular objects which exist, and then is it the case that there are these other objects called universals which also exist in the same fashion as these particular objects. The universal is the negation of the particular. The entire notion of “exist” which is used by people when they incorrectly approach universals is wrong. A universal is a universal insofar as it exists, in contrast to particulars, which do not exist.

  5. Edenist whackjob says:

    Professor Blakemore. Heh.

  6. Pingback: The Talos Principle, part 1 | Aeoli Pera

  7. Obadiah says:

    “Seeing life as a puzzle which must be solved” is basically true for all xNTx types

    Again, both seperate quaternalities (in this case, Cognitive Functions vs Craniology) are simultaneously true and both are simultaneously limited in their explanatory totality (Craniology will specifically determine the altitude of abstraction)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s