Traits related to mental speed and caliber

It should go without saying that this is all very speculative, but if it went without saying then it wouldn’t be very autistic, eh?

I should note ahead of time that speed is probably something we get from neanderthals, whereas caliber is probably something we get from melonheads and maybe post-hybridization cro magnon. I believe this because mental speed characterizes high-ability Asians, whereas caliber better characterizes high-ability whites. IQ is polymorphic, like height, therefore I expect the races with the most neanderthal admixture will also have the most neanderthal-like intelligence. Mental speed is also (currently) the primary discriminant in the middle ranges of IQ, separating midwits from dullards, where modern IQ tests have the highest resolution. However, in the upper ranges of intelligence caliber is the primary discriminant.

A big, BIG caveat: Most of the traits associated with mental speed don’t account for the extremely conservative neanderthal personality, which we’d expect from hominids that didn’t significantly modify their lifestyle for hundreds of thousands of years. So most of the liberal epiphenomena of mental speed would have been counterbalanced by the personality traits that accompany deep-set eye sockets (longer, larger emotional cycles) and pongid somatotype.

Mental speed vs. Mental caliber
High performance on Raven’s Progressive Matrices IQ subtest vs. High performance on analogies IQ subtest
Derives particulars from generalities vs. Generalizes from particulars
Deduces vs. Induces
Many ideas vs. Big ideas
Prestige-seeking vs. Control-seeking
Novelty-seeking vs. Stability-seeking
Social competition vs. Emotional solipsism
Enjoys academic work vs. Disdains academic work
Thinks playfully vs. Thinks seriously
Liberality vs. Cynicism
Equalism vs. Classicism
Progressivism vs. Conservatism
Tendency to Gnosticism: “mind over matter” vs. Tendency to Naturalism: “matter over mind”
Sees connections vs. Sees patterns
Acquires knowledge vs. Acquires understanding
Prefers stimulants vs. Prefers depressants
Suffers from racing thoughts vs. Suffers from troubling thoughts

I may add to this over time because I haven’t found all my notes.

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

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

45 Responses to Traits related to mental speed and caliber

  1. MM says:

    >I should note ahead of time that speed is probably something we get from neanderthals, whereas caliber is probably something we get from melonheads and maybe post-hybridization cro magnon.
    nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo more melonboon posting ;p
    Generally:
    Speed=white matter
    Caliber=grey matter
    + neuronal firing time, brain cc size, effeciency/synchronization, STRUCTURE, and you get the person.
    No need for “muh melonheads” .
    > the extremely conservative neanderthal personality
    A portion of all mammals are introverted as it is a survival strategy that works because the hard times always come. Of course with human being where they are in terms of resources and day-to-day threats the extroverted personality reigns supreme. But not forever, my doomed-to-never be-happy-and-be-constantly-sensing-threats-coming-from-all-directions freinds!
    No need for “thuh Thalforce”.
    Again this all goes back to (mainly) frontal and amygdela.
    Ultimate “melon”= frontal lobe dominant with weakened amygdela(not in r/k sense; higher threshold for danger).
    Ultimate “thal”= weakened orbitofrontal cortex, increased reliance on temporal lobes over frontal, very well developed amygdela. You wil DIE! uh-oh little thal run away!!!!! RUN AWAY
    And so on and so go the rambilingz
    ……..
    the list of traits themselves iz very good.
    ….
    “LOLZ XDDD. But MM, how big was theyre benis?”- I havent researched this. Will look into. Great question!

    I am now sexually transitioning into bicebicebice.
    “Its the bo bicentennial!”


    “Bold strategy, let’s see if it pays off Cotton. The blog already has plenty of noblilid posters!”

    • Ophiuchus says:

      I see someone’s been railing even more Thalforce Anhydrous gator tails than usual

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo more melonboon posting ;p

      Nigger I do what I want.

      >Generally:
      Speed=white matter
      Caliber=grey matter
      + neuronal firing time, brain cc size, effeciency/synchronization, STRUCTURE, and you get the person.
      No need for “muh melonheads” .

      I think both things are true.

      >A portion of all mammals are introverted as it is a survival strategy that works because the hard times always come. Of course with human being where they are in terms of resources and day-to-day threats the extroverted personality reigns supreme. But not forever, my doomed-to-never be-happy-and-be-constantly-sensing-threats-coming-from-all-directions freinds!

      That’s why we figure a hominid heavily selected via many generations of ice age conditions would be like this. And a large portion of our genome is theirs. Last premise is that it’s easier for homo sapiens to select traits from the existing genepool than to develop entirely new ones. Ipso facto, neanderthal theory.

      >Ultimate “melon”= frontal lobe dominant with weakened amygdela(not in r/k sense; higher threshold for danger).

      Probably, except I’d put parieto-frontal integration there.

      >Ultimate “thal”= weakened orbitofrontal cortex, increased reliance on temporal lobes over frontal, very well developed amygdela. You wil DIE! uh-oh little thal run away!!!!! RUN AWAY
      And so on and so go the rambilingz

      Everybody needs a hobby :-D.

      >the list of traits themselves iz very good.

      Thank you, many of your traits are very good also sir.

      >“LOLZ XDDD. But MM, how big was theyre benis?”- I havent researched this. Will look into. Great question!

      +1 Nobilid posting.

  2. Koanic says:

    Good stuff.

  3. Edenist Whackjob says:

    Watching a political debate or participating in one is kind of excruciating to me – people are discussing a bunch of jumbled up particulars on various level of the low to mid spectrum of caliber* without going into their underlying axioms and worldviews and discussing root causes.

    Example: when discussing immigration to Sweden, I will go for the following arguments:

    – Linguistic: is ethnic category legitimate in the discourse – if we may speak of family of an entity with functional validity for instance why not race? Ie discussing abstraction privilege (who gets to set the boundaries of legitimate generalities).

    – Empirical: exactly how tied are race and IQ/personality/temperament, can we prove this more conclusively with transracial adoption studies, and can it be fixed with CRISPR down the road?

    – Statistical: how may we create models of what society will look like 30-40 years down the road: the crime rates, the breakdown of institutions, and at exactly what point do we become minority-Swedes?

    When discussing with the other people I just find their jumble of particulars very confusing – I just want to say “OK, put X there and Y there and you assume Z, then that grounded in Q” instead of having their mental loops go on and on without resolving the argument.

    * I even think people have an intuitive grasp of caliber, because in a debate you can’t go too low, and a higher caliber argument usually trumps a lower one. It’s just that there is a caliber ceiling and anything above that gets ignored because it lacks the “metaphysical reference” in our current climate (ie our culture is only equipped to handle a certain weightiness of ideas).

    • Edenist Whackjob says:

      *family AS an entity

    • Edenist Whackjob says:

      Another one I will typically go for:

      – Comparative moral genealogy (I guess you could call it). Pointing out how current mores are very time-specific, not ageless, likely to change, and were very recently not held even by people considered popular today. For instance, Swedish PM said racist things in 1965, “racism” is word from as late as 1930s, Asians get a free pass on being racist, what is commonly held to be moral today is only 20-30 years old, etc. Basically attacking the deep assumption that PCism is some kind of timeless God-given set of morality, when it is just a specific thing spanning a few decades in the West.

  4. Edenist Whackjob says:

    A few more:

    – Puzzles vs philosophy

    – Magic vs magick

    – Rhetorical debate vs “state your axioms”

    – Cleverness vs wrestling with ideas

    I don’t know if the deepsock thing is correct – met plenty of Mensa-type melons who were very fast yet didn’t seem to grok what I was saying. Or they just countered me with mid-level logic and then invoked the “modern ceiling of metaphysical weightiness” when I brought out the big guns.

    • Ophiuchus says:

      @Whackjob I’m actually kind of inclined to agree with this assessment. I think Thals tend to gravitate more toward caliber because there’s a lot of external environmental information that they’re generally not picking up, because their (usually pretty considerable) cognitive power and energies are focused almost entirely on deep thinking and creative problem solving. By contrast, a melonhead is constantly on “input mode”, constantly scanning the environment and receiving very dense, nuanced, multilayered and multitextured streams of information from said environment. This is because the locus of cognition is external and focused outward on the external world, rather than on the internal world.
      I think Aeoli had a post about how the melonhead cognitive mode is like constantly seeing the world in vibrant colors, like DBZ or something, which I feel is a pretty good description to someone who has the internal, diamagnetic cognitive locus. I’d say that what “seeing the world as DBZ” actually means is naturally noticing/observing things like subtle connections, patterns, implicit sociopolitical systems and meanings interwoven into the fabric of society, and being able to expertly navigate/manipulate/engineer those systems to their own benefit. This leaves much less time/energy for doing soothing activities like going through books of mechanical algebra problems or creating rocket science, which are more traditionally Thallish activities. Though of course there are still outliers like Goethe, who was just freakishly intelligent in all areas due to being possibly the only person alive at the time with a “properly configured” brain (i.e. full-melon with zero genewarp). There are also people like Richard Feynman who was socially skilled and instinctually grasped prosody and how to talk to and get through to people easily and naturally–but who also possessed a remarkable amount of both caliber and speed (for instance, Feynman taught himself trigonometry, advanced algebra, infinite series, analytic geometry, and both differential and integral calculus at the age of 15). But people like Goethe and Feynman are obviously genetic outliers and not representative of shallow-socketed Par-ty People as a class. So yeah, I think Melons lean toward speed and breadth while Thals lean toward depth and magnitude. But that’s just, like, my opinion, man.

      Also, here’s the aforementioned post about the different cognitive modes:
      https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/gray-matter-focus-is-diamagnetic/

  5. Edenist Whackjob says:

    FWIW, I don’t think IQ is entirely static. I’ve often thought about the possibilities of becoming more Mensa-smart and had a few glimpses once in a while of that cognitive style – it’s definitely a very valid mental style, even if there is less depth. You see the breadth and branching possibilities instead. INTJ vs INTP kinda.

    • purpletigerbot says:

      It is static in the sense that there is probably a limited range you can explore. I imagine why its hard to communicate outside the +/- 15 IQ point range.

  6. Pseudorandom Bypasser says:

    I’ve started to think that there’s two separate factors to white matter: local and global connectivity. Autists and males have increased local and reduced global (plus more grey matter), females and schizophrenics vice versa. Highly intelligent people have all three buth likely with ratio/reliance that varies by personal disposition.

    Let’s make three separate variables:

    Cortical grey matter = cgm
    Local white matter = lwm
    Global white matter = gwm

    In order of importance,

    Speed: cgm = gwm > lwm (but generally/in everyday modern life gwm > cgm > lwm)
    Caliber: lwm = cgm > gwm

    On Speed I put cgm and gwm as equal because their importance varies by task (and some tasks utilize both). In Speed type tasks lwm isn’t needed much. Speed tasks are characterized by simplicity. An example of a cgm type Speed task would be perceiving the solution to a simple Raven’s puzzle that doesn’t require any reasoning (altough it still requires a little lwm and gwm to move the information around in your brain). An example of an lwm type Speed task would be responding quickly in a social situation, possibly by applying a learned phrase or behavior. Similarly it would require a little cgm and lwm to perceive the situation and move the information from cgm to your lwm network. Thals have an advantage in cgm type Speed tasks but their tendency to Caliber hinders them in lwm ones. Vice versa for melons. Don’t have any good idea about hybrid types.

    Caliber relies on deep and detailed perception (cgm) and processing (lwm) of abstract or sensory information. Because of the depth and precision of processing gwm is needed less. I think that well-developed interaction of cgm and lwm is what gives one the ability to “feel” ideas as if they were almost like tactile objects (abstract intuition). I think that concrete intuition is a cgm (perception) + gwm (synthetizing) thing, with weight on the latter. This is taken to extreme in females and schizophrenics and has very little of the local and analytical “making sense” (lwm and cgm) part.

    So,

    Concrete intuition = synthetizing objects’ forms
    Abstract intuition = synthetizing objects’ substances

    I think that Speed and Caliber are just dispositions and ones’ brain’s overall quality decides their maximum ability in either, altough Speed is more of a midwit thing and Caliber a highwit thing. But there’s still those deeply thinking midwit spergs and Edenist Whackjob’s “Mensa Melons” that lack understanding. As I said above, it’s the VHIQ folks that are good at both.

    Not sure if this model makes any sense, but it should give some playing blocks. I might refine or continue on it later.

    • Pseudorandom Bypasser says:

      Little addition: gwm is your overall “knowledge system” which’s specialization is decided by ones’ disposition(social and everyday information, bus schedules, general knowledge, whole fields of law, intellectual interests…). Ones’ ability in chosen specialization is decided by it’s overall quality. This is why midwit spergs can be creative and deep thinkers but their overall output and complexity is limited.

    • Pseudorandom Bypasser says:

      Important correction:

      “perceive the situation and move the information from cgm to your lwm network…”

      Replace lwm with gwm.

      • Pseudorandom Bypasser says:

        And another:

        “but their tendency to Caliber hinders them in lwm ones…”

        Again replace lwm with gwm.

    • Edenist Whackjob says:

      How can we use this knowledge to become more productive? GTD meets neuroscience meets embedded programming (methods for operating in low-memory hardware environments where bit shuffling is critical).

      • Edenist Whackjob says:

        Imagining productivity methods that make you go through different “cognitive style” workouts in order to find your optimal flow pattern – like brainstorming on steroids – structured neuroproductivity with tuning for individual brains. Ie you might follow a protocol telling you to first think about something you want to achieve, then to write down 10 particulars, then generalities, now tilt the image on its head and make a sound, etc, etc, you get the point. And then try different sequences until you hit the right one for productivity.

        • Edenist Whackjob says:

          Was actually earlier today about my “meta-strategy” module or planning algorithm if you will, which is heavily dependent:

          – Gathering a lot of info, methods, etc
          – Insight-mining over time
          – Compressing and re-compressing into koanic structures all the time, trying to make everything more and more general without losing explanatory and relevant-to-my-subjective-situation nuances
          – Getting really stressed and out of flow when I have backlogs of info to process
          – Having frequent “click” and “microzen” moments where I come up with innovations which make life better and easier

          Sometimes I think I should just chuck this out and replace it with a generic human MBA getting-things-done widget algorithm – I’d be much more productive in standard productivity stuff.

        • purpletigerbot says:

          Related @
          https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2016/01/28/productivity-for-precious-snowflakes/

          > But access to tools, locations, and people is no longer the primary constraint in doing valuable work. Nor do “energy levels” come close to capturing the subtleties of human motivation. I believe we’re entering a new era: Mood-First Productivity. States of mind, or more colloquially, moods, are bubbling up to the surface as every external constraint on work falls away, one after the other.

          • Edenist Whackjob says:

            I’ve read that, now re-reading. .

            • purpletigerbot says:

              Great read. The author of that peice is basically trying to do what you have said above:

              > Sometimes I think I should just chuck this out and replace it with a generic human MBA getting-things-done widget algorithm – I’d be much more productive in standard productivity stuff

              Bending the Curves of Productivity @ https://praxis.fortelabs.co/bending-the-curves-of-productivity-25edb268672f#.a9ofk2i7c

              > This idea, of course, isn’t new. In the world of manufacturing, it is the equivalent of small batch sizes, a key part of the Just-In-Time vision that has propelled Toyota through 7 decades of growth to become the world’s largest automaker. In the world of software, it is known as continuous integration and deployment, a practice that has revolutionized the speed and quality with which the software we use every day is developed. In the startup world, Eric Ries has shown us in his book The Lean Startup how delivering value quickly in small chunks is essential for learning and innovation.

              > But we lack a framework for how individual employees can use small batch sizes to their advantage. If each worker in this new economy really is a Company of One, wouldn’t it make sense for us to use the same approach that has revolutionized manufacturing, software development, and startups?

              How do we apply op research/software engineering principles to knowledge work and GTD? Batching, templates, frameworks. Remixing. High speed prototyping. Rapid dev cycles. ETC ETC

            • Edenist Whackjob says:

              “How do we apply op research/software engineering principles to knowledge work and GTD? Batching, templates, frameworks. Remixing. High speed prototyping. Rapid dev cycles. ETC ETC”

              Fascinating stuff – do you blog? Rare to find someone in edenosphere (except Koanic himself) who’s so into the intricacies of productivity paradigms :)

            • Edenist Whackjob says:

              purpletigerbot – didn’t finish yet but I’m imagining something like a daily standup + longer pomodoro + a scrum retrospective squeezed into a block, and then some kind of system to connect these “atoms” of work. Perhaps with a break in the middle to avoid becoming too stuck in tunnel-vision on the particular task, but rather keeping Value in the foreground at all times.

              So your unit of work would look like:

              – what am I trying to do to raise Value?

              – longdoro

              – intermezzo for recalibration on Value

              – longdoro cont

              – mini-retrospective: OK I produced this little bit of Value, now tie it together with previous Value and move on to next chunk of work

              It would need something like Bittorrent’s chunking algorithm, where lots of little pieces of work can be tied together into a whole.

            • Edenist Whackjob says:

              “We need to change our conception of what we are producing, from final deliverables to what I will call “intermediate packets.” Instead of seeing the final product (the deliverable we sell to the client) as the only repository of value, we package up all the intermediate steps — the research, notes, brainstorms, examples, outlines, prototypes, drafts, and even crazy ideas we choose not to pursue — as reusable components for later consumption.”

              Keeping something in your “mental registers” is a lot more efficient than serializing it into a packet system like this – also, you lose a lot of subtle mental context in the latter case, which may be hard to keep up to date in a system – I’ve thought about the approach he mentions, and the pro of it is that it really forces you to be clear on what you’re trying to do, the downside is that it starts to change your behavior – you become more simple-minded because everything has to be packetized, and not everything can be.

            • Edenist Whackjob says:

              “Organizing your work in intermediate packets has an extraordinary effect: you become interruption-proof. Because you rarely even try to load the entire project into your mind at once, there isn’t much to lose if someone taps you on the shoulder.”

              I’m always trying to do this via acronyms, koans, quick-lists, etc. However I need to figure out an intermediate form, between those quick short-hands, and full info OODA, which can take days. Loading my entire “what I need to get done” into memory and properly processing it is very cathartic, but also very costly – ideas necessary…haven’t found a way to properly keep up to date without full OODA – the ideal would be to have it done as a stream with processing on the fly – maybe something like Cyborganize.

            • purpletigerbot says:

              > Keeping something in your “mental registers” is a lot more efficient than serializing it into a packet system like this – also, you lose a lot of subtle mental context in the latter case, which may be hard to keep up to date in a system – I’ve thought about the approach he mentions, and the proof it is that it really forces you to be clear on what you’re trying to do, the downside is that it starts to change your behavior – you become more simple-minded because everything has to be packetized, and not everything can be.

              Agree with this sentiment. Perhaps the important things to take away is not the short work intervals and small packet creation, but just formalizing the step of making anything with value into a searchable/reusable packet if possible?

              For more simplified, repetitive business logic stuff/ anything with obvious, actionable steps and a clear end goal/you know what the final form looks like => use short interval/packetable sessions with strict time limits defined in minutes (probably want to keep these to ~15-20 minutes if possible and don’t want anything longer than 75/90 minutes) => the goal here is the create a packet

              For more serious work => doing a math proof/figuring out an algorithm/fixing bugs/stream-of-thought writing where you are mostly fiddling and there are no obvious, actionable steps after START nor do you know what the finished product will look like => use deep thinking long intervals w/ loose time limits are defined by hours. And these long hours of work can still be packetized => the whole work via compression, and small chunks of the work as individual packets => the goal here is wandering/getting from 0 to 1 without even knowing what 0.99 looks like (if you don’t know what is causing a weird bug, how do you know what the solution will look like? you don’t even know how long it will take to fix)

              The major benefit short interval/packeting seems to avoid tunnel vision and spending endless hours on things of weak value. The weakness is the avoidance of deeper work for the shallow/predictable and, like you noted, the long-term danger of simplifying your thinking (which you all noted).

              > Fascinating stuff – do you blog? Rare to find someone in edenosphere (except Koanic himself) who’s so into the intricacies of productivity paradigms :)

              No. I should. My goal with all this productivity stuff is to be able to get the most out of my weak energy/production cycles (depression/axiety combo is a brain/energy killer)(I think Cyborganize’s goal was high productivity with low energy?), overcome my weak conscientiousness, and make output less painful. Plus, I’ve always been inspired by people with endless streams of high level of output.

              Some recent productivity-ish stuff I’ve been working on:
              – higher level DRY (create lots of reusable templates/frameworks)
              – abusing formalization/methodology/checklists AKA avoid thinking when doing something for the nth time
              – loose archiving/organizing with an emphasis on keeping current projects and their files/dependencies more organized and separated from everything else => complex organizational schemes/premature optimization would always kill me in the past => I’ve been avoiding naming files until using them in projects because it is such a cognitively demanding task
              – hard time limits on things I know I get tunnel vision with => used to spend way too long perfecting homework in uni to raise my grade only a few percentage points => good enough is more valuable than waiting for perfections
              – creating rapid prototypes versus long walls of text for communication purposes etc etc => show don’t tell => writing only seems to work as a tool of persuasion when the other is in the right frame/mood => real working prototypes are persuasive 99% of the time if they just WORK
              – follow interest instead of forcing things because its the RIGHT THING TO DO/WHAT I SHOULD DO => “to achieve our highest goals, we must be willing to abandon them” (this article @ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/stop-trying-to-be-creative/ and talk @ https://youtu.be/dXQPL9GooyI => these thoughts through me in a loop the past month)
              – planning what to do during rest periods versus what work to do (workout, eat, shoot some hoops in my driveway) => I already have a strong sense of what needs to be done, but always a poor sense of what to do when I have a break >_<

            • Edenist Whackjob says:

              Interesting. My thoughts on productivity right now:

              – Cal Newport et al talk about focus and deep work and so on – this is easy to do when your job is like that but not possible if you’re a Renaissance man – a system is needed where one can “multithread” and get a lot done across multiple domains

              – I’m thinking to try a system where the goal is just to start a bunch of “stuck” tasks instead of seeing completion as the goal (because if completion with a bunch of threads -> instead CPU congestion). Usually, right after I start a stuck task, I figure out how to do it, or at least get a better understanding. The trick is then to figure out how to turn that into a more permanent structure, and to pick up where one left off. So, packetizing, but with the focus on getting tasks from mentally “stuck” to “unstuck”. System flow > completion of individual tasks. Because completion is ineffective because 1) congestion and analysis-by-paralysis 2) the definition-of-done changes dynamically so better to partially complete, use learnings from that, and then re-eval later on.

              – I think the neuroscience angle is totally overlooked. Newport talked about “attention residue” – that alone could be the subject of several ideas – the idea that your attention is tainted by light exposure to stimulus leads to all sorts of interesting corollaries (I mean, the effect could be used for good as well, I mean – background processing and all that).

              – Taking entire days/weeks off feels like a loss, but it’s actually very productive on a macro level. Entire idea-trees get pruned off, and tunnel-vision is lifted from the planning algorithm. The only problem is if you’re consciously running hypomania – taking downtime will get a bit depressy.

              – Playing with identity is powerful – especially when other people confirm it for you. Everything NLP says about this topic is worth studying.

              – Again, NLP: chunking of tasks. Aeoli never looked into this channel I think, but it’s worth a look (sorry if you’re thal – I just thalsniped you now): https://www.youtube.com/user/leicafrog/videos

              – Mirror neurons: learning from others who are more productive than you can be a very strong revealer – why rely on neocortex when social hardware can do it for you? Wunderlist is a blunt grossmesser for you but a sharp katana for someone else – study the sword strokes, not the steel.

              – The two variables that ultimately count: Energy and Information. How much “energy” (time, motivation, willpower, social pressure, environmental pull, etc) can you pull into something – ie how “go-toward-that-thing” can you muster – and how clear is your information on 1) why and what you are doing and 2) how, who, when and with-what you are doing it?

              – Training the brain to give you the right answers. Reasoning things out is slow, you want your brain to give you the answers automatically – I find it hard to explain how that’s done but in general you need to strain a bit on the task first and then let your brain grow into generating answers along that lane automatically.

              – Emotional control is king – does your stack of undone work bother you? To be in control, feel in control first. You need to avoid the urge to compulsively complete things, and just work on them instead. Of course you must want to complete them as well, but it’s a different feel – hard to explain :p

            • purpletigerbot says:

              You’re on a whole other level then I am >_ Cal even admits this in his book => you can’t use deep work at your sole strategy if you are running two companies like Jack Donovan => or doing anything besides being a prof/monk with clear short/longterm goals and fixed schedules. Tho I think it is worth it to have deep work sessions when you can.

              – I’m thinking to try a system where the goal is just to start a bunch of “stuck” tasks instead of seeing completion as the goal (because if completion with a bunch of threads -> instead CPU congestion). Usually, right after I start a stuck task, I figure out how to do it, or at least get a better understanding. The trick is then to figure out how to turn that into a more permanent structure, and to pick up where one left off. So, packetizing, but with the focus on getting tasks from mentally “stuck” to “unstuck”. System flow > completion of individual tasks. Because completion is ineffective because 1) congestion and analysis-by-paralysis 2) the definition-of-done changes dynamically so better to partially complete, use learnings from that, and then re-eval later on.

              My major stuckness now is social anxiety that I need to get over -> minor conflicts that should take 10 minutes to fix, I avoid and leave me stressed out for a week

              > So, packetizing, but with the focus on getting tasks from mentally “stuck” to “unstuck”. System flow > completion of individual tasks. Because completion is ineffective because 1) congestion and analysis-by-paralysis 2) the definition-of-done changes dynamically so better to partially complete, use learnings from that, and then re-eval later on.

              But more to the sense you are talking about => ‘ System flow > completion of individual tasks.’ => just poked at things for a bit/start to get over starting anxiety => this also gives you the sense that you can easily jump back into the task => you’ll have a better sense of what they entail so you can subconsciously think about them

              This is actually a great model => start and create minimal viable work => if it provides enough value in current state, submit it/send it/remix it/add it to framework etc, otherwise package it and add to projects/work/todo flow or archive it if it have weak value => come back when needed => rewrite it or add features based on new requirements/knowledge/insights => if it provides enough value in its current form archive it/submit it/send it/remix it/add it to framework etc otherwise, put it back into the project/work/flow or archive it if it doesn’t have much value => loooop

              Damn … thx for giving me that insight >_

              “Instead of being rewritten, software has features added. And becomes more complex. So complex that no one dares change it, or improve it, for fear of unintended consequences. But adding to it seems relatively safe. We need dedicated programmers who commit their careers to single applications. Rewriting them over and over until they’re perfect. Such people will never exist. The world is too full of more interesting things to do.”

              High value things should be re-written many times. You’ll write things better in the future than now. The churn rate should be high AKA Chuck Moore is my hero => a fun interview @ https://www.simple-talk.com/opinion/geek-of-the-week/chuck-moore-geek-of-the-week/

              – I think the neuroscience angle is totally overlooked. Newport talked about “attention residue” – that alone could be the subject of several ideas – the idea that your attention is tainted by light exposure to stimulus leads to all sorts of interesting corollaries (I mean, the effect could be used for good as well, I mean – background processing and all that).

              Attention residue => Leroy calls this carryover from one task to another “attention residue,” where you’re still thinking of a previous task as you start another one. Even if you finish your task completely, you still have some attention residue swirling around your head as you embark on your next task, meaning that bullet point on your to-do list doesn’t start off on the right foot.

              This is a huggggee issue. I think this is why Cal’s deep work concepts are so attractive => kill the residue which everyone feels. If you can kill figure out how to kill the residue sans avoiding switching tasks => get book deal and lecture circuit $$$$.

              – Taking entire days/weeks off feels like a loss, but it’s actually very productive on a macro level. Entire idea-trees get pruned off, and tunnel-vision is lifted from the planning algorithm. The only problem is if you’re consciously running hypomania – taking downtime will get a bit depressy.

              Agree here. This is hard for conscientious people! So perhaps I need to abuse this strategy more to gain an advantage.

              – Playing with identity is powerful – especially when other people confirm it for you. Everything NLP says about this topic is worth studying.

              Need to explore this. Is this in the sense you limit yourself by your identities, especially strong identities confirmed by other people? => you’ve been told you should be an engineer by parents/relatives/friends your entire life => struggle thru undergrad => work for 10 years as an engineer => realize you’ve just been doing what everyone else said you should be doing and have no real sense of personal identity?

              – Again, NLP: chunking of tasks. Aeoli never looked into this channel I think, but it’s worth a look (sorry if you’re thal – I just thalsniped you now): https://www.youtube.com/user/leicafrog/videos

              This fellow is quite relaxing to listen to and speaks quite clearly. Good parsody. What should I be looking for when listening to him? Any NLP recommendations?

              – Mirror neurons: learning from others who are more productive than you can be a very strong revealer – why rely on neocortex when social hardware can do it for you? Wunderlist is a blunt grossmesser for you but a sharp katana for someone else – study the sword strokes, not the steel.

              Agree. Formal systems collapse quick with me => stopped trying implementing others perfect system. Formal systems + low conscientiousness = quick fails. Loose guidelines/sword strokes for the win.

              My most productive tool is any text editor with line swapping followed by basic mind maps => CRIMPing is too costly.

              – The two variables that ultimately count: Energy and Information. How much “energy” (time, motivation, willpower, social pressure, environmental pull, etc) can you pull into something – ie how “go-toward-that-thing” can you muster – and how clear is your information on 1) why and what you are doing and 2) how, who, when and with-what you are doing it?

              Agree here. These questions take up a lot of mental energy if you waver on them and kills most productivity. I’ve lost weeks recently because I don’t have solid answers to these questions.

              – Training the brain to give you the right answers. Reasoning things out is slow, you want your brain to give you the answers automatically – I find it hard to explain how that’s done but in general you need to strain a bit on the task first and then let your brain grow into generating answers along that lane automatically.

              Force/brute the first steps and let the brain go into auto drive for the rest of the session?

              – Emotional control is king – does your stack of undone work bother you? To be in control, feel in control first. You need to avoid the urge to compulsively complete things, and just work on them instead. Of course you must want to complete them as well, but it’s a different feel – hard to explain :p

              NEED TO WURK ON THIS.

              Do you have email? I am at purpletigerbot at gmail.

            • purpletigerbot says:

              Quick thought on fighting stuckness => if your to-do list has 10 items => start the list by minimally starting/touching each of them some way if possible to eliminate any sort of starting anxiety

            • Edenist Whackjob says:

              Aeoli has my deets.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Want me to send these to purpletiger?

  7. My craziness might be explained by my ability to relate to being both sides of the vs sign in extreme ways. Edenic mutt lyf dawg.

  8. Santoculto says:

    I think in two categories: analysers/thinkers versus chrystallizers/learners.

    The first group is better to analyse, to the [correct] pattern recognition, but not exactly good to semantic memory. Because their shorter semantic memory they need analyse more than just trust in their internalized or chrystallized informations.

    The second group is better to ”learn” and to memorize but not exactly to the analytical-critical skills. Because their bigger semantic memory they tend to trust it more than re-analyse-and-criticise the informations they already have internalized [they trust more in their (usually social) instincts]. Of course, there are mixed combinations as well in terms of ”size” or quantitative levels for example, higher and lower iq analyzers and chrystallizers.

    Fundamental Weakness of analyszers/thinkers: shorter semantic memory.
    Weakness of chrystallizers/learners: lower analytical-critical skills.

    And people who are better to analyze and to criticize often tend to be good to the creativity as well rationality, because they will always need to manipulate informations in their heads and while we are always analyzing we, at priori or logically speaking, tend to become more rational or have more potential to become like that.

    • Edenist Whackjob says:

      Good analysis. Trying to develop both, to become super-rational :p

      • Santoculto says:

        Thanks. I think it’s possible to become decently rational avoiding over confidence in crystallized ‘knowledge”. Bear in mind that our memory potential “serves” to increase the extension of our instincts, de novo instinct, ;). This explain why a big semantic memory without analytical critical motivation and talent tend to act as a trap of over confidence. What I call: Criticize the critic. Instead always analyze pattern before internalize certain information, people specially more crystallized are more prone to progressively internalize informations and reducing the deliberated or analytical critical thinking, because it’s easy use internalized information than “again” analyze patterns. And this information, more or less personally neutral, more or less factual, by sub self-conscious people, tend to be used to reinforce instinctive impetus instead to understand reality. On other hand too much analytical skills without a minimal amount of correct internalized information it’s just like a robot without sense of direction. Both it’s needed but I think usually one trait tend to block other trait and people who have both very well developed seems rare as well pure analyzers or thinkers. Most of so called intellectuals are more crystallized in style than analytical.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Agree, although I think it’s necessary to mention that these are correlated subtraits of g.

  9. Pingback: The factory analogy for the two-factor intelligence model, part 2 | Aeoli Pera

  10. Pingback: The gnostic and naturalistic fallacies | 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