Big problem in Aeolitalk

For a long time I’ve been absolutely convinced of the fact that the introverts have higher blood flow to the rearward parts of the brain during introspective periods. This is 180 degrees backward and incorrect– the blood flow is increased to the verbal thinky thinky parts: frontal, Broca’s, and hippocampus (H/T Nottuh for the correction).

I’d use this as an example of something I recently said to Koanic on the forum, to explain why the occipital style is less flexible when it comes to switching worldviews: “It’s because every time you make a tweak you have to compile the whole worldview again from scratch. This takes time, energy, and generally happens at the worst possible times. Best to avoid it unless absolutely necessary or during planned periods of repose (when refactoring becomes an energizing call to action, rather than unruly scope creep).”

So what I have here is a giant fundamental problem in my mental model of the brain due to a silly reading comprehension failure way back who knows when, and the responsible thing to do is read over everything I’ve previously written in order to root out the big errors for a big recompile.

Even the thought of this is exhausting, but then there’s that whole CONSCIENTIOUSNESS thing. Dammit.

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in meta, psychology. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Big problem in Aeolitalk

  1. Nottuh says:

    Worldview reorganization is a bitch, indeed. I suppose whatever degree of aphantasia I possess (at least I think my mental visualization ability is rather lacking in clarity) might make it easier for me to do so, given that my internal visions of the world are very fuzzy and loose, rather than visually acute and detailed. A blessing in disguise, perhaps?

    Recompiling your posts would be a good idea just to improve the accuracy of your blog and so as place some of your previous insights into proper context. It’d be a big undertaking and a huge pain in the ass, but I think it’d be worthwhile.

    • Edenist whackjob says:

      Worldview-reorg for me comes down to chucking dearly-held presuppositions.

      For instance, one might presupposition might be that the world is not mainly causal/material, or that women are inherently inferior.

      I’ve recently recompiled my worldview. Once I accepted the emotional pain of “killing my darlings”, it seems as if the recompile happened quite rapidly. Matter of weeks or days, during which I started to notice new things about reality and develop new interests.

      • Rime says:

        “Worldview-reorg for me comes down to chucking dearly-held presuppositions.”

        I concur. Finding out the hard way that some people will eat a baby if you salt it first broke my naivety.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        ESR calls this “killing the Buddha”: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2658

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        “Sanity is measured by the ability to recognize evidence that your beliefs are wrong, and to detach yourself from them in order to form improved beliefs that conform to reality and better predict your future experiences.”

        This in itself presupposes a certain… not belief, but rather attitude: that you are a rational creature, ie that you are using your faculties and cognition in order to optimize your physical survival and long-term happiness. Otherwise, what is the point of conforming to your reality. If your basic attitude to life is solipsism and narcissism, ESR’s attitude above is going to sound like death.

        I think this is the key thing to fix first.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >I suppose whatever degree of aphantasia I possess (at least I think my mental visualization ability is rather lacking in clarity) might make it easier for me to do so, given that my internal visions of the world are very fuzzy and loose, rather than visually acute and detailed. A blessing in disguise, perhaps?

      It could be from dopamine overload. My waking visions are often fuzzy but now that I’ve gone a few days without human contact I’ve become much sharper.

      >Recompiling your posts would be a good idea just to improve the accuracy of your blog and so as place some of your previous insights into proper context. It’d be a big undertaking and a huge pain in the ass, but I think it’d be worthwhile.

      I’ve decided to sell the plan to the bigocc as a way of generating easy new blog posts :-). The old man is stubborn but he likes efficiency as much as I do.

  2. Edenist whackjob says:

    Re: introverts and extroverts, I’m almost always on the introvert side. I (very rarely) get a glimpse of life on the extrovert side (I can kind of induce it by having a hangover, strangely enough). It’s a fun mode! Don’t disparage extroverts – they might not be building Linux, but they’re getting much more juice out of life than we intros do.

    I think the ideal would actually be to run on enough intro to make the meta-level decision of which one to switch to. So you might be in slightly-more-intro mode and decide to go full extro for a party, then have some time limit kick in and make you go back (because the full extro might wanna stay there forever). Then you could go full intro for a while to do cram for a test. Stuff like that.

    • Edenist whackjob says:

      I’m more and more starting to think that the limbic system mode we’re running on – whether we’re male/female, intro/extro, positive/negative, etc, colors reality to such a massive degree that it’s meaningless to talk about truth unless we first state what limbic mode we’re running.

      An introvert might become libertarian simply because he has a model-first approach to life (ie “sees” everyone as abstract actors in his head), has a natural affinity for elegant solutions, and has a strong sense of personal space. Is this truth? Or is it just reality viewed through the lens of the introvert’s nervous system?

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        The question is if it’s possible to have some kind of null-point, a neutral reality-tunnel from which to decide which reality to experience?

      • The Eyes of the Owl says:

        Suspect introversion/extroversion is more malleable in some people than others. Those wired for ambiversion come to mind, but have seen people swing from one to the other over the course of their lives. Could sustained exposure to certain stimulants in the environment over a sufficient period of time be enough to shift someone one way or the other? Suspect this is a possibility.

        Also suspect that true ambiverts could be trained to switch modes with some ease (many perhaps have some sense of how to do this already).

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          As I intimated to Whackjob, I think it’s a matter of appetite (with analogy to nutrition). Nutritional needs can shift drastically over time due to circumstances (lifting weights, hard labor jobs) and the aging process.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Ultimately I think it’s a matter of appetite. Some people need more protein, some people can run purely on carbs.

  3. Pingback: Emotional response unter alles | Aeoli Pera

  4. Rime says:

    While we’re talking about brains, has anyone looked at the difference in genes controlling software vs. hardware?

    Western Europeans got genes important in controlling software (brains) and American Indians got genes controlling hardware (skeleton structure). Despite looking less Neanderthal than Indians, W. Europeans are closer to Neanderthals in the ways that matter. Basically W. Europeans are gracilized Neanderthals, whereas A. Indians are lobotomized Neanderthals. Obviously its more complicated than that but I thought I’d throw it out there.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Personally, I’m not entirely sold on genes passing on software. We only have some evidence that genetic memory is real, but we don’t know what form it takes or how it works.

      • Rime says:

        Think of genes like vases. This is not a perfect analogy, but I’m trying to give you a shape to grasp.

        A vase can be made out of several materials (glass, clay, metal) just as genes come in a,c,t,g, the vases can be expressed in a number of ways (tall, long, squat) just as alleles can be dominant, recessive, co-dominant. Vases are made to be used, genes are made to be expressed. We can fill a vase with various liquids and solids (water, wine, flowers), various volumes can be placed in the vases. The volumes are like the amount of nutrition available to express the genes, the contents of the vase are like the epigenetic environment determining gene expression.

        I’m pretty sure genes pass on software and the variation we see between offspring and parents comes down to a lack of knowledge on the particulars of gene expression. Not sure if my analogy explains anything about why I think that.

  5. Rime says:

    Recompiling and editing your blog would be rewarding as it would give you a good review of what you’ve written. It may help spark new ideas. You’ll find yourself visiting parts of your brain that you hadn’t known you’d compartmentalized and it would allow you to find flaws and thought-veins that would remain untouched.

  6. Pingback: Statements on my “attitude” of rationalism | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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