I think that covers most of it. There may be some associative horizon mixed in as well, but I suspect that’s an artifact of some other phrenological trait that tends to show up with deepsock.
The Ghost Not places a negation – a sign flip – around every input to mentation at the lowest level, which emerges as a negation of the answers, like an invisible negation spread over the entire result. One effect of this is to convert inclusive thinking to exclusive thinking. Management consultants have a lament that they must sing over and over again – “Not X or Y – X and Y!” It is needed because most people immediately assume that options are by default exclusive rather than inclusive. A person being shown how to submit her website URL to Altavista became very distressed because she did not want to put “Hotel” because people might search for “Ibiza”, and vice versa. The very idea that she might be able to enter “Hotel” and “Ibiza” to a sophisticated automated free text search system never even occurred to her.
This effect has very serious consequences indeed. At all times, each dyadic person must believe that their internal whiteboard is reality – otherwise the cognitive apparatus for conventional perception would not be much use. If it is reality then it must be complete – they can acknowledge no deeper reality that the whiteboard must conform to. Therefore any data not already possessed by the person is regarded by them as false, and automatically denied until they are forced to accept it by direct confrontation. Then they edit history to pretend that they have always “known” the fact. This presents an insuperable barrier to learning, and in situations where force cannot be used, can bring down major corporations employing thousands of people.
Finally, a result of exclusive thinking is that it simply cannot cope with interacting causes for things. Each aspect of a dyadic’s life is divided into little discrete compartments, that are pretended to be each an exhaustive and complete understanding of its topic. This yields a situation where knowledge and hence understanding is held in isolated packets, which the dyadics will not integrate. Instead, they prefer to use one isolated fact that is totally unrelated to what they are denying as the basis for their denial.
The Ghost Not
I suspect these behaviors are an artifact of what I call “ratio-driven feeling” where the OODA loop (Perception -> worldview -> emotional reaction -> rational redirection of impulse) is actually ODOA (Perception -> worldview -> object categorization -> emotional redirection of object models) in Asperger’s and people with very deep sockets. That is, tree-first perception versus forest-first perception. If people are always asking you “why do you have to analyze everything?” this is probably your cognitive style. Forest-first perceivers enjoy rainbows less when they are explained because this robs them of their mystery, whereas tree-first thinkers enjoy the things they understand more and dislike what they don’t understand. So, when I say that people with Asperger’s are “hypermoral” it’s not to praise us as more holy and less sinful, what I mean is that we are mostly unable to act on instincts without reference to philosophies we can clearly articulate (and vice versa for socialites). It’s why dancing is a much higher-order level of thinking for us than quantum mechanics: if we are perceiving on the order of forests, that’s the result of making sense of many, many trees first.
For more on that, see the Nerd as the Norm.
Disagreeableness is used here in the usual Big 5 sense:
People high in agreeableness are nice: compliant, nurturing, kind, naively trusting and conciliatory. However, because of their tendency to avoid conflict, they often dissemble and hide what they think. People low in agreeableness are not so nice: stubborn, dominant, harsh, skeptical, competitive and, in the extreme, even predatory. However, they tend to be straightforward, even blunt, so you know where they stand.
People with low levels of agreeableness are seen by others as competitive, colder, tougher and less empathic. They are less likely to look for the best in others, and are not particularly tolerant (an attitude that is much valued by agreeable people). They are less concerned about the emotional state of others, are willing to engage in conflict, and will sacrifice peace and harmony to make a point or (if conscientious) to get things done. People find them straightforward, even blunt. They strongly tend towards dominance rather than submission (particularly if also below average in neuroticism).
People with low levels of agreeableness are not forgiving, accepting, flexible, gentle or patient. They don’t easily feel pity for those who are excluded, punished or defeated. It is also difficult for them to be taken advantage of by disagreeable, manipulative or otherwise troublesome people, or those with criminal or predatory intent. Their skepticism plays a protective role, although it can sometimes interfere with their ability to cooperate with or trust others whose intentions are genuinely good. They also be less likely to reward good behavior or to give credit where it is due. They can cooperate, when cooperation is in their interest, but very much appreciate competition, with its clear losers and winners. They will not easily lose arguments (or avoid discussions) with less agreeable people, and can enjoy the battle. They are generally good at bargaining for themselves, or at negotiating for more recognition or power and are likely to have higher salaries and to earn more money, in consequence. People low in agreeableness are therefore less likely to suffer from resentment or to harbour invisible anger. In addition, because of their tendency to engage in conflict, when necessary, people low in agreeableness people tend not to sacrifice medium- to long-term stability and function for the sake of short-term peace. This means that problems that should be solved in the present are often solved, and do not accumulate counterproductively across time, although people close to those low in agreeableness may experience them as overbearing.
Women are higher in agreeableness than men. The mean percentile for women in a general population (women and men) is 61.5. For men it is 38.5.
I think the primary reason NW European civilization is marked by highly individualistic creativity and intellectual dispute (socket depth) and NE Asian civilization is marked by highly egocentric conformity and intellectual stagnation (shallow sockets). So it would appear the West retained more of the neanderthal personality (T-front) whereas the East retained more of the neanderthal intellect (T-back).
The difference in absolute level of accomplishment between the two civilizations probably just comes down to trust as explained by Schneier. Traditionally, you could trust most Europeans most of the time not to victimize you because they’d feel guilty about it, whereas the Chinese are a deeply deceptive people bound only by shame who riot when they aren’t allowed to cheat on standardized tests because cheating is normal. As Western faces become more neotenous with shallower sockets like Mongoloid faces we are also starting to adopt a more Chinese personality, becoming highly agreeable, emphasizing the value of social harmony and functioning within a larger system, and looking to the state to enforce social norms (like monogamy) rather than proactively engaging in idiosyncratic personal conflicts.