Disambiguating norms for behavior

Conscientiousness is defined in Aeolitalk as the tendency to conform to a standard or “norm” of behavior. It is not necessarily a conscious decision, and the standard of behavior could be explicit (e.g. a military code of conduct) or implicit (e.g. fostering the “spirit” of a warrior).

We also have (at least) two forms of conscientiousness, which I’ll describe here as “extraverted conscientiousness” and “introverted conscientiousness” that can cause a person to adhere more seriously to an ideology (to the point of fanaticism). An extraverted conscientious person feels anxiety if other people think they are a hypocrite (that is, their moral compass is predominantly social), and an introverted conscientious person feels anxiety if their inner-focused conscience finds a contradiction in their actions and beliefs. The terms “extremist” and “fanatic” loosely fit the extremes of these traits, respectively. An extremist considers himself to be on the extreme high end of civic responsibility (“morality” = mores) and a fanatic considers himself to be on the extreme high end of ethical responsibility.

Generally these motivations are at odds because the social moral compass often is short-sighted and therefore lacks internal system coherence, which is the driver of the internal compass. The internal compass is more likely to be at odds with external reality, whether social or physical or both, because it is relatively unconcerned with the results of actions (focusing instead on intent).

So we have two axes, explicit/implicit and external/internal. Here are examples of norms for each combination:

Explicit, external: Code of conduct, formal etiquette
Implicit, external: Social mores, esoteric aspects of religion
Explicit, internal: Philosophical ethics, personal codes, internalized religious codes
Implicit, internal: Conscience, Budo, Daoism

These are each enforced with various sorts of punishments:

Explicit, external: Fines, corporal punishment, imprisonment, territorial violence
Implicit, external: Shame, ostracization, unofficial behavioral correcting violence
Explicit, internal: Distracting “conflicted” feelings, confusion
Implicit, internal: Guilt, “pangs of conscience”

Conformity is also rewarded with different sorts of feelings:

Explicit, external: Social prestige, personal pride
Implicit, external: Social dominance, personal superiority
Explicit, internal: Confident sense of purpose, motive, and direction
Implicit, internal: Self-righteousness, feeling “pure”

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

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

16 Responses to Disambiguating norms for behavior

  1. Aeoli Pera says:

    No, I don’t have any hacks, I just came up with this idea earlier today (except for the two copypasta paragraphs from the forum).

    Clothing would fall under implicit, external.

    >Implicit, external: Social dominance, personal superiority (For aspies Id say this might be good to find their niche(s), and blast and cruise in it.)

    In the sense of Temple Grandin’s advice to specialize, then generalize the specialty, yes I’d agree. But this quadrant in particular is where aspies fail 99/100 times.

  2. Magnus Richards says:

    “Generally these motivations are at odds because the social moral compass often is short-sighted and therefore lacks internal system coherence, which is the driver of the internal compass. The internal compass is more likely to be at odds with external reality, whether social or physical or both, because it is relatively unconcerned with the results of actions (focusing instead on intent).”

    What about the social compasses of cults, religious sects, and other groups whose members are supposed to share a common internal compass? And what about the internal compasses of people who have been indoctrinated by such cults? (In particular, I’m thinking about Edenism.)

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Alas, if we were a proper cult there would be women. I mean, there’s one, but she’s not interested. As things stand, edenism is one part fringe science, one part conspiracy theory, and one part identitarian politics for people with Asperger’s syndrome. Also lately it’s been one billion parts metaphysics discussion group because that’s what happens when you put thirty aspies on the same forum.

      I’m not familiar with the specifics of cult psychology, but I can make some guesses.

      The basic economic tradeoff involved in a cult is that the followers get the human attachment, moral framework, and religious grounding they’ve been missing in their personal lives, and in exchange the leaders take sexual and financial advantage of them. This hints at the social compasses involved. The leaders are almost certainly led by an internal compass of some kind, and the followers are driven by an extraverted compass.

      Religious sects are typically “protestant” in some way- they’ve left the larger body due to strong protests about it. The fact of the matter is that internal compasses cannot be “shared”, else they would cease to be internal. What you refer to is the admonition in some religions (Christianity, most notably) to “internalize” the external mores.

      I’d ask if you need me to make further sense of that, but you aren’t a serious interlocutor and it’s unlikely you’re holding some vast intellect in reserve.

      • Magnus Richards says:

        Good points, except for the obvious negs in the last paragraph.

        Here’s my counter-conspiracy theory:

        The reason I brought up Edenism is that many of its believers seem to be driven to a large extent by extraverted factors (namely, a desire to belong). The science behind Edenism is tenuous at best, so one’s belief in it depends mostly on one’s inclination to self-identify as an intelligent aspie outcast (a.k.a. Thal). It appeals to the egos of such people; “I don’t feel like I belong and I was at some point disgusted by most other people, so it simply must be the case that most other people are poop (read ‘Cro-Mags’)”. Thals are caricatures of one’s own positive traits (assuming one identifies as an intelligent aspie introvert, which most Edenists do), while Cro-Mags are caricatures of other peoples’ negative traits (ibid). Phrenology serves as a way to distinguish ingroup and outgroup members, but the problem is that face reading is inexact and often open to interpretation. This makes it easy: an intelligent person who rejects Edenism can be classified as a melon or starchild, while a stupid person who rejects Edenism can be called a cro-mag. (Some exceptions will apply, where an anti-Edenist’s face will be undeniably thallish, but these can always be explained by other factors; maybe he’s a melon, maybe for whatever special thallish reasons he can’t accept his true nature, etc). In real life I’ve seen counterexamples, people with cro mag faces/backs whose behavior is distinctly non-cro-mag, and the inverse too. I suspect that many Edenists with vaguely thallish heads identify themselves as Thals in order to reaffirm their ingroup status to themselves, and I doubt the leaders/facereaders are going to have a problem with that unless a potential Edenist’s head is blatantly, 100% non-thallish. Then he is simply called a melonhead.

        One joins and is crowned a thal or melon, and becomes a part of something. There’s still a herd instinct, and there’s still a common target for the group members to hate, thus solidifying group bonds. Common hatred is like humor. Consciously, Edenists are anti-herd, anti-socialization, but it’s clear that in practice this ideal can’t be upheld without abandoning Edenism. So, certain antisocial aspects of Edenism are self-contradictory. A more coherent policy (and one that would more accurately reflect Edenists’ actual attitudes) would be “thals and melons good, smart. Cro-mags bad, dumb, mean. You join us, you are good, smart. You against us, you are bad, dumb, mean.”

        So, recipe for Edenism:
        •Find target audience of unhappy people
        •Pander
        •Strengthen ingroup/outgroup boundaries, develop and enforce social rules to guide herd

        It’s not so much the recipe that I find bad; it’s common to most if not all social groups with a leader; it’s that Edenists claim to reject this while they actually participate in it. Edenism does capture some elements of the truth (as do all good fictions/myths), but a lot of it is just hateful ideology posing as something greater.

        From what I’ve seen in the comment threads of various Edenist pages (e.g. Koanic’s site, Vox Day’s site, your site), Edenism mainly attracts alienated and mildly narcissistic people, not necessarily aspies (though this category would include some Aspies as well). Were you ever actually tested for Asperger’s? Reading through your blog, I don’t think you are an aspie, though you seem to be intelligent and to have a wide associative horizon, so maybe that covers it up.

        I hope that clarified my position. I’ll leave it to you to decide how unreasonable this is.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          >Good points, except for the obvious negs in the last paragraph.

          They were normal insults, negs are different. And you started it.

          This is not an unreasonable position to take, and I’ve seen it before a couple of times. Call it the simplified cult model of edenism:

          Smart person who agrees = thal
          Smart person who disagrees = melon
          Dumb person who disagrees = cro magnon

          Rather than delve into this interpretation, I’ll get straight to the heart of the matter: what I care about is whether the ideas in edenism are true, and how much of it is true, and whether we’re getting closer to the truth or moving further from it. A side benefit of truth is useful applications, which I also care about, but it’s not a driving motivation.

          If you want me to get into the details of what you’ve laid out here, I can do that, but with the understanding that the data is not the model, and motivations and such are a different subject entirely.

          I enjoy explaining things but I won’t waste time on foolishness. So…ball’s in your court.

          • Magnus Richards says:

            >And you started it.

            Fair enough. I’m sorry for being rude in my first comment.

            >If you want me to get into the details of what you’ve laid out here, I can do that, but with the understanding that the data is not the model, and motivations and such are a different subject entirely.

            >I enjoy explaining things but I won’t waste time on foolishness. So…ball’s in your court.

            OK, I’m interested. Tell me more.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >Fair enough. I’m sorry for being rude in my first comment.

              Forgiven. If not for vast swathes of disingenuous midwits I could be more informal with strangers. But if you know what associative horizon is, you can’t be a complete stranger.

        • Heaviside says:

          Aeoli’s point is that it’s not a cult because we haven’t moved into the monetization phase yet. If that bothers you so much you should purchase our equity so we can fleece investors instead of groupies.

          • Magnus Richards says:

            >Aeoli’s point is that it’s not a cult because we haven’t moved into the monetization phase yet.

            I got that. See my first response to Aeoli to get a better idea of what my problem with Edenism is.

            The gist of it is that although Edenism isn’t a proper cult, it has undeniable cult-like properties which seem to contradict certain Edenist doctrines.

            Mostly Unrelated Thoughts (MUT):
            Consider social coherence as a dimension with “cultural diversity” at one extreme and “cult” at the other. Cults are extremely high-coherence, usually as a result of having strict ingroup/outgroup boundaries. High-coherence environments naturally attract people who are bad at functioning in low-coherence environments, and vice versa. This has been implicitly incorporated into Edenist doctrine via the characteristics of the Thals vs Cro-Mags, thus creating a myth favoring alienated people who desire high-coherence environments, who are –surprise! — just the kind of people who are susceptible to joining cults or similar organizations, of which Edenism is one. (What a run-on sentence!)

            Some parts of the Edenic myth are genius (cheap pun intended), but the strict ingroup/outgroup divide is nasty because I don’t have sufficient reason to hate people who like low social coherence. I’m probably lower on social coherence than all Edenists, which is why I’m not one.

            >If that bothers you so much you should purchase our equity so we can fleece investors instead of groupies.

            I would only do that if I was an Edenist, but then I would be a groupie and not just an investor.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              This “social coherence” idea is a good name for the axis, where you have diversity, atomization, and conflict at one extreme and inbreeding, conformity, and stagnance at the other extreme.

              I think the entire alt-right believes we have a disastrous level of diversity at the moment. However, it’s possible that edenosphere whackos need environments with even less diversity than average. But given that the average verbal IQ around here is about 145, I doubt that is the whole story.

          • Aeoli Pera says:

            I think Koanic wants to monetize it but if the typing group is indicative, he’s the only one.

  3. Pingback: The simplified cult theory of edenism (with apologias) | Aeoli Pera

  4. Pingback: Shitpost: Moral characteristic of primary edenic traits | Aeoli Pera

  5. Pingback: Beginning theory of general socializing | Aeoli Pera

  6. Pingback: Mores and institutions | Aeoli Pera

  7. Pingback: Scientific description of guilt vs. shame | 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