Addendum: Also endogenous personality

Addend to previous post: High-IQ dysfunction peaks at about IQ 155.

So we actually have at least three extreme personality features in the 155 region which cause major dysfunction regardless of social milieu:

1. High psychoticism
2. High associative horizon
3. Endogenous personality (repurposes the brain for extreme specialization)

A person with these traits is going to be a niche survivor at best in any sort of social system. They tend to sacrifice individual fitness for group fitness.

It’s unclear at present precisely how much these are interrelated (possibly psychoticism causes endogeny?), but they do seem to form a personality triad comparable in strength to the dark tetrad and the OCD/Tic disorder/ADHD triad.

As Heaviside pointed out, there are some dysfunctions that are due to high IQ alone, such as the curse of knowledge (which directly causes social isolation and extreme loneliness). However, such a trait is less dysfunctional than it is merely maladaptive (in the current environment). E.g. a high-IQ person in a society of similarly high-IQ people does not suffer from the curse of knowledge. These problems are also much more easily overcome via simple course corrections, and are less likely to cause a person to consistently lead a highly disordered life.

Edit: Sorry guys, I will start checking spam regularly. Being fair to the filter, you were linking to a penis enlargement product :-P.


About Aeoli Pera

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

38 Responses to Addendum: Also endogenous personality

  1. Edenist whackjob says:

    Associative horizon is definitely the one for me. I mean, I have the other two as well, but that is the one that causes the most friction. It’s like everyone else is in this mental box that they refuse to step out of. That they are 1) generally follower types and unable to form an independent opinion (non-psychotic I guess) and 2) don’t really give a fuck anyway (exogenous) just adds to the suck.

    Recent example: friends of mine spent hours and hours debating immigration at my place. Taxes, crime, islamization, yada yada. When asked I simply said something along the lines of “it’s very simple – either ethnicity is a valid category in the discourse, or we aim for Star Trek meets Singapore in society – the premises are all that matter, all the rest is details”. For me, that is just so obvious. Star Trek or valid category. To discuss little details seems more like “using arguments as soldiers” as they say on Less Wrong. Ie one guy has decided that he is going to be the anti-immigration guy, and uses every concrete he can rustle up to pump himself up, while never actually getting to the root of the matter.

  2. Edenist whackjob says:

    Some weed visions from yesterday:

    Socialism blends the concepts of “government” and “theft”. That’s why some intuitive/rational people have a good reaction to it (government is a good thing in a rational order), and other rational-intuitives have a bad reaction to it. It’s never a 100% good/bad reaction, though, if you’re honest. Socialism always feels kind of like a hybrid concept, something that should not really be. Hence the common trope “it’s a nice thought but it doesn’t work in reality”.

    People who have a 100% good/bad reaction to the concept of “socialism” are operating on a slogan level, I think, not seeing the shape of the concept. Ie people with a verbal understanding of the world.

    The “theft” side will invariably cause one to lose faith in the concept of private property, also. The more honest lefties simply extrapolate that to its logical conclusion. Ie property is meaningless (“allt åt alla” is a common slogan here – everything for everyone). I have yet to “see” where that leads – I suspect that it’s a really Clueless thought (Gervais model), though.

    Conflict tolerance is alpha. Ie being able to live with other people having a different aim, extending their energy somewhere else. By this token, a consensus culture like Sweden, is very beta (or neotenous?)

    Some people have a “regal” or “noble” look about them, and other people pick this up.

    The social brain operates like some kind of tape reading machine, reading various “scripts” off the reel. If a person acts/believes/talks/looks a certain way, a certain script gets activated and they’re either the cool guy or a loser. Different behaviors are then permissible toward that person.

    The thing is that people can still do this social brain stuff even if not so bright or really drunk, so the markers in external reality can’t be THAT complex. It would be fun to try and reduce down to its bare components.

    Then, I realized, that’s what Mystery (Erik von Markovich) did. The two fundamenta of the social script: Survival & Replication. That book (The Venusian Arts Handbook) is all about how to weave those into the social script in order to get onto the right track in the social brain.

    People got too pre-occupied with some of the surface level things (peacocking, silly opinion openers, stuff like that) and didn’t see the scientific analysis and approach that was offered in that text.

    Why do people have such massive egos today? Because society constantly forces us to pretend and in some blank out. That is a mental muscle and that mental muscle needs something to do.

    • Edenist whackjob says:

      Another one, seen yesterday and fleshed out just now:

      Game started out as faking signals of evolutionary fitness. Now, Game, is about improving one’s own actual evolutionary fitness.

      So, humans are incredibly meta in that we both know there’s a an evolutionary script running, and we talk to each other about how to improve our own fitness, and sometimes succeed.

      Of course, being evolutionary fit is a good in itself. It’s not like a peacock’s feathers. It’s nice to be jacked, have money, be able to make friends, etc.

      Then again, the peacock might think that its plume of feathers is good in itself. If peacocks had higher IQs and vocal chords, they might evolve little subcultures where they talk about plume enlargment and what supplements to take to have richer colors, etc. And having a glorious plume on insta would be self-evidently a sign of living the good life. The smarter lady-peacocks would be like “yeah, of course a big set of feathers means nothing, it’s just an evolutionary atavism, but Big Bird in The Sky does it make my cloaca tingle”.


    • Heaviside says:

      >Socialism blends the concepts of “government” and “theft”.

      It only looks that way to someone who is approaching it from a liberal perspective at the outset. How can the state commit a crime when it is the foundation of the rule of law to begin with? The meanings which “state,” “government,” “law,” etc. have in the context of Anglo-American thinking unfortunately muddle any clear discussion of these concepts with all of the preconceived baggage that they have.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        That’s true, but this baggage isn’t entirely without substance. The problem is that people really do have a moral instinct for some reason (although you don’t, if it is true that you’re psychopathic), and this instinct gets confused with the laws that arise from evopsyche and other purely material psychological causes.

        For instance, Koanic recently posted a video of a homeless man getting beaten and electrocuted to death by police simply because one of the cops happened to be a violent psychopath who felt like it. (I plan to fisk that video eventually. Lots of good stuff to learn.)

        The same goes for charity, as I’ve talked about before. People have this moral instinct to give to the poor, but they have a tendency to prefer voting this into law because voting is easier than actually doing something. Why do Americans vote to open the borders rather than actually going to Mexico to try to help these poor people?

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        “That’s true, but this baggage isn’t entirely without substance. ”

        Case in point: animals have a “concept”* of territory, this is probably the origin of private property thinking in humans. Even in a state of anarchy, one can still think the thought “that guy stole my stuff” even if you can’t do anything about it. You don’t need the government to define it for you.

        * AH diversion: maybe the concept of concepts can be explained as these animalistic cognitive mental maps (for instance, a cat just KNOWS that this piece of land is “my territority”) that get coupled with symbols (ie speech). So a knowing of “my territory” gets named via words, and we have the idea of private property.

      • Heaviside says:

        >The problem is that people really do have a moral instinct for some reason

        But people do not have an instinct for natural rights theory, they just think that they do.

      • Heaviside says:

        >Case in point: animals have a “concept”* of territory, this is probably the origin of private property thinking in humans.

        However, the way animals hold territory has much more in common with the sovereignty of the state or feudal landlordism than it does the holding of capital, which is why Georgism attracts many libertarians.

  3. Edenist whackjob says:

    I remember writing a quite long comment that got swallowed by the spam filter. Is that accurate?

    The interface to your forum ;) is a bit unwieldy, Aeoli, so I quickly lose track of old stuff I wrote unless someone posts a reply, which gets picked up by RSS.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I have mixed feelings about cleaning this place up. Probably it is long overdue, but the idea of spending 10 hours reading a book and applying the knowledge fills me with dread. I could write 10-20 posts in that kind of time!

  4. Edenist whackjob says:

    Shame vs guilt. Interesting.

    I wonder if the guilt thing requires upgraded brain hardware. Ie people with a big forehead seem to do well with objectivity.

    What is guilt really?

    Capacity for objectivity (including about self) + neurotic cognitive style (able to generate a lot of negative thoughts) + conscientious personality (strives to be “complete”, wants to live up to the rules as a matter of personal worth, doesn’t want to leave any unwashed spots on the floor, etc)

  5. Edenist whackjob says:

    One insight I’ve often had: I can relate to what it’s like to be neurotypical, because I went through that capacity when I was younger. Ie not that I was any less aspie in my personality as a kid, but my brain power was maybe more along those lines. I was also a lot less psychotic and associative, so I took more easily to neurotypical logicz.

    One thing I seem to remember is that neurotypical logic is a lot like stitching together slogans. And there is a great deal of trust in authorities. If someone says “but scientists say” or “my doctor says” than that is just so. Wanting to investigate beyond that is a sign of psychoticism.

    There is also, prima facie, no supernatural dimension. It’s easy for the smarter neurotypicals to debunk “fairy tales”. But to go beyond debunking takes AH.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Ditto all except the bit about “no supernatural dimension”. I think we both started out on the hyperverbal megalomaniac aspie track before going off the rails entirely.

      I’ve always had a category for the supernatural dimension stuff though. I was raised Christian and it took, and I’ve been a true believer since I was eleven.

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        “I’ve always had a category for the supernatural dimension stuff though. I was raised Christian and it took, and I’ve been a true believer since I was eleven.”

        Ah, that could explain it. Was raised secular/agnostic. The interest in religion happened after I started becoming mentally ill in my early 20s (that’s not a disparaging comment toward religion, it’s just a fact).

        Prior to that, all spiritual things were in a box of “it’s fascinating, but we just can’t know” for me.

        So I guess I can relate to being neurotypical-Swedish and you NT-USian.

  6. Edenist whackjob says:

    Aeoli, I switched to a real email adress in case you want to send me stuff.

  7. Edenist whackjob says:

    Random thought:

    There should be a fictional currency for prediction, working on gentlemen’s rules (ie you’re responsible for how much you own, and being truthful about that).

    Ie I would like to bet $100 (fictional) that the person behind a certain blog is such and such. Makes it more interesting to make these kind of bets if there’s something scarce at stake (even if it’s just an invented scarcity).

  8. Edenist whackjob says:

    Wrote an email to Aeoli earlier today about why RSD infields are likely fake (two arguments 1) at least one of their videos is just prima facie fake, which casts doubt on all others and 2) Tyler knows that infields convert and is a good enough aspie rationalizer to override his ditto ingenopathy).

    Now this guy comes out and explains it much better:

  9. Lazer says:

    @Edenist Whackjob September 6th at 734

    Are you familiar with this book at all? It is a great look into the biological nature of territory. Theres a good section on some ungulates in Africa and how they defend territory (a circle on the ground) and it resonates strongly with anarchy. However, rather than securing territory they are fighting over mates and the grounds to them.

    • Edenist whackjob says:

      Nope. Thanks!

    • Edenist whackjob says:


      This second, more advanced bio-computer formed when vertebrates appeared and began to compete for territory (perhaps 500,000,000 B.C.). In the individual, this bigger tunnel-reality is activated when the DNA master-tape triggers the metamorphosis from crawling to walking. As every parent knows, the toddler is no longer a passive (bio-survival) infant but a mammalian politician, full of physical (and psychic) territorial demands, quick to meddle in family business and decision-making. Again the first imprint on this circuit remains constant for life (unless brainwashed) and identifies the stimuli which will automatically trigger dominant, aggressive behavior or submissive, cooperative behavior. When we say that a person is behaving emotionally, egotistically or ‘like a two-year-old,’ we mean that s/he is blindly following one of the tunnel-realities imprinted on this circuit.”

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        AH spurt of random fancy: In RAW-speak, we might say that modern society is stressing us in the following ways:

        Circuit I – Biosurvival Anxiety: modern workplace, The Economy, climate change. Dysfunction: low-level survival panic leading to impaired ability to make smart life choices, burnout, chronic stress, creative energy burned up by trivialities.

        Circuit II – Emotion/territory: multiethic immigration, consumerism. Dysfunction: segregation, low-level constant paranoia, loss of trust in fellow man (see Robert Putnam, “hunkering down” phenomenon), inability to organize effectively above small-group level, obsession with status not achievement.

        Circuit III – Symbolic/dextery/linguistic: PC, media newspeak, mass hypnosis (Hollywood being the prime example of putting images in people’s brains). Dysfunction: inability to think clearly and independently, inability to disbelieve horseshit, dynamic of regression to animal level for normals or hitting the ceiling of insanity for smarter people, emotional arguments taking the fore in society, rule by women.

        Circuit IV – Social/sexual/tribal: the sexual revolution, porn. Dysfunction: mating behavior thwarted, gender identity problems in society, turning gender into a battleground (did you know that every uni course in Sweden has to have a segment on gender issues?).

        To summarize, the main dynamics in society propelling the normal guy are: Cash-flow, Status-seeking, Images-in-the-brain, Constant-mating-season. Stay at the job to avoid anxiety. Promote self to counteract loneliness of not having a tribe. Make decisions based on images and plotlines from movies and TV. Find the next fuck.

        I’m very much into this concept of “psychic stressors”. Whoever wants to destroy, knows that Reason must subverted. And the way is through the passions. Life, Home, Thought and Family/Community are attacked in various ways.

        Maps pretty well to the Four Hoursemen, as well.

  10. Lazer says:

    That made my day. Thank you!.

    “Circuit II – Emotion/territory: multiethic immigration, consumerism. Dysfunction: segregation, low-level constant paranoia, loss of trust in fellow man (see Robert Putnam, “hunkering down” phenomenon), inability to organize effectively above small-group level, obsession with status not achievement.”

    Especially the part about inability to organize effectively above small-group level. Ive been hounding on people for years how they need to root their phones and get encrypted chat clients installed that sync up with their laptops. The problem holding everyone back is its a major cock block, and the modern male is too scared to actually just go with it because of:

    “Circuit IV – Social/sexual/tribal: the sexual revolution, porn. Dysfunction: mating behavior thwarted, gender identity problems in society, turning gender into a battleground (did you know that every uni course in Sweden has to have a segment on gender issues?).”

    No I did not know that, but I once specifically took a Women Studies class just to troll the feminists.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s