Scaling Functional Perspectives of Cognition

I’ve been playing with scaling modifiers to the new cognitive function extensions. The scaling modifiers are * and /.

Why these symbols in particular? Well, I already added plus and minus; My intuition tells me it would be fun to add all the other little calculator buttons, too, and this has been fun to think about.

Some people think you have to discover some hidden truth, and THEN you go adding in the symbologies.

But that’s boring. It’s more fun to reverse that process, and see what happens.

Here’s the Scale-up side:

• O* would be the perception of the outsized potential of a given functional perspective, in a given context.
• D* would be the intensive command to engage the tools of a given functional perspective, in a given context.

And the Scale-down side:

• O/ would be the perception of a massive overengagement of the functional perspective, or a perception that its engagement must be massively decreased in order to achieve a good outcome.
• D/ would be the intensive command to disengage the functional perspective.

Examples:

• NiD/ expresses e.g. your single-outcome perception role is massively overdone given the problem we need to solve here, so stop being such a prophet of doom.
• FiO/xh expresses a question like “why is your skill at deploying relativistic relational logic so precious to you that it seems to prevent you from getting a good outcome in this situation?”

This last example is a big part of what keeps good people in cults, I’ve found. Which made me think about the way strong and overused functional perspectives keep people stuck to things, stuck in things, and stuck on things.

Attaching a formal language to this could act as a grosso modo method of measurement and help offer control that could, potentially—and as an example here—help people to leave harmful cult enviornments.

Advanced Levels, or Making it All Easier

One funny thing about hitting the advanced level in personal study, or even in a lot of formal disciplines: Quite often, nobody pops up and tells you when you’ve arrived.

It may be that your first perception of the advanced level is a deep feeling of frustration with your work. That’s expected, in a way, but it’s also kind of a shitty trophy to receive. Congrats! Here’s a feeling of frustration. Wear it proudly!

Others might also have a difficult time telling you what to do when you get there.

It seems to me that a lot of energy is wasted because we teach each other to think of “Advanced” as “difficult,” without spending much time on why advanced is difficult.

Advanced levels are difficult because they present more subjective problems, for one. Here’s an example:

• There is more pressure on the individuals to go deep, because many of the superficial, objective parts are now in the practitioner’s past. They must now
  • Explore the subject matter in more depth
  • Explore the given context or setting in more depth
  • Formulate depth-based judgments about what to do next

Depth is difficult because it involves things like reconciliation loops and a willingness to self-contradict. It’s also extraordinarily difficult to communicate from a place of genuine depth, not only because of the time taken, but because there is a subjective weighting factor in determining how others can metabolize a depth-based conversation. In other words: I could explain this to you, but is it worth the trade-off?

In some cases, yes, it’s worth it via contract, compact, or other means.

But in many cases, the explanation is left undone, and the student who was ready to go advanced was left to think “just as I thought, they don’t know the answer,” or worse, “there’s no point in going this deep—after all I’m pretty good at it and I can’t perceive any of the value this person claims to have perceived clearly.”

It would be nice to develop better tools to communicate this level of depth; as it stands now, language leaves a stunning inequity here that robs us all of the progress we ought to be able to make together.

And THAT would be truly advanced progress.

Academic Math

Academic math has recently been changing in character. It seems to have transitioned from deeply qualitative theory to something more akin to opportunistic application.

Some have described this approach as stringing together “black boxes” which are “assumed to work”.

Here you can watch someone “very important”, who communicates from Ne*, Ti+ functional perspectives, lamenting this change:

His sentiment is mainly NeO* as he chases after subjective psychological mandate. We all must deploy our heroic perspectives.

But it’s also a clear sentiment of SeO/ and TeO/ in a hesitant way. The cards are already laid out; the river has been crossed. You can read the resignation on his face—in regard to those functional perspectives, at least.

Let me do some spitballin’ here.

Math has come down to earth. It probably will do more grounding in the near future. You’ll see more math in your home environment. You’ll be able to set your home cooker to make or print you a formulaic steak, and you’ll know your favorite formulaic patterns by heart.

That’s right, I’m talking about direct formulaic inputs! It will be an amazing convenience and ordinary people will be tripping over themselves to learn some more of that math.

Even backwater types will be playing twangy music in the background in their videos instructing you on their home-recipe formulaic inputs for your next competition-level, single-shot .25 caliber AI-assisted duck hunt.

(Who needs a shotgun anymore, with this kind of access to precision?)

This is all going to bug pure-logic theorists, which is great, and sure, kinda terrifying too, but IMO it will lead to a resurgence of theory later, with a much more expansive space where subjective-organizational TiO* inputs will feel like rainfall in the desert.

Math may even transcend itself in 20 different ways with this kind of metamorphosis happening, for all I know.

Expectations:

• We will see more S types in academic math.
• If you’re an INTJ who’s interested in math, now may be a terrific time to onboard yourself and find yourself taking leadership roles later on.
  • This does depend a lot on the role, environment, etc. Always start with math at a deeply subjective level and work outward from there. Basically, my advice would be SeD/ and TiD* for a lot of you INTJs out there who are really passionate about “being a mathematician” as opposed to doing math. That’s fine, but it’s also a trap.
• Math comes home.
• Outcomes ought to be really cool and fun. I look forward to a LOT of this.

OK, that’s enough for now.

Filed in: Sensation /40/ | Intuition /62/ | Interests /111/