[Paleopsych] binary nature

Werbos, Dr. Paul J. paul.werbos at verizon.net
Sat Oct 30 19:17:34 UTC 2004


At 12:55 PM 10/30/2004 -0400, Alice Andrews wrote:
>maybe...or maybe something along lines of ervin laszlo's 'bifurcation' in
>dynamical systems theory...hmmm...

Hmm. Fuzzy logic. Have discussed that often enough with Lotfi Zadeh,
the official God of that movement.

But the concern you began with... is more reminiscent of yin-yang things... or
of some more precise technical things.

Some folks on this list have talked about "introvert versus extrovert." 
There is
something there, but the validity of that distinction has been exaggerated.
The best cognitive psychologist I know at NSF really gets his dander up 
when he hears some
of the silly overenthusiasm about Meyers-Briggs as a key to all of life...

But one of the other top people told me in 1999 that "tolerance of 
cognitive dissonance"
and "novelty seeking" are far more fundamental dimensions of human diversity.
Those variables tend to remain stable in people's lives, he says... and get 
passed on to children..
far more than most traits we measure.

Your initial complaint about Bush's folks involve low tolerance of 
cognitive dissonance.

And in fact... this relatively stable part of psychology has some ties to 
even more reliable stuff
in genuine cybernetics. Reliable, but technical.

But my intuition says this is not the time or the place to explain more 
about how this works.
Such explanation needs to be part of a connected whole. Such stuff out of 
context can distract people
to wrong places. Suffice it to say I know how to build such systems, and 
have published the main
outlines of how, for those who can understand.

A few words. The Nazis and the Communist Party were also famous for extreme 
intolerance of cognitive
dissonance -- and it went far beyond what they needed to stay in power, 
unless you count supporting certain types
of personality as part of how they stayed in power. Yet intolerance of 
cognitive dissonance is not
an evil trait, nor even a mental deficiency. It is.. just a parameter. The 
opposite extreme,
the extreme "sponge" or "fuzzball" personality, has equally severe weaknesses.
I would argue that we need some diversity here, and some efforts by both 
personality types to appreciate
and live with the other, and to overcome their own characteristic weaknesses.

And maybe we need some new hard systems of thought that allow those who 
demand coherence to remain in touch
with reality, the largest possible reality. The possibility is there... we 
need it very badly... but who is
really willing to work on that project? Fuzzballs can't see it, and most of 
those who demand coherence are strongly
wedded to prior commitments right now. And it demands an openness to a 
complexity that those
with intolerance of cognitive dissonance rarely would have the courage to 
face up to (as indeed few of Bush's
loyal people face up to the mess his tax cuts have created). They tell me 
that novelty seeking
and tolerance of cognitive dissonance are not 100 percent correlated, and 
are equally fundamental; so perhaps
we rely a lot on those for whom the correlation is broken...

Best,

    Paul

>Alice
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Steve Hovland" <shovland at mindspring.com>
>To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" <paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
>Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 9:37 AM
>Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] binary nature
>
>
> > If you're looking for computer metaphors,
> > consider "fuzzy logic."
> >
> > Steve Hovland
> > www.stevehovland.net
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alice Andrews [SMTP:aandrews at hvc.rr.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 4:41 AM
> > To: The new improved paleopsych list
> > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] binary nature
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> > I  think you're right...Binary is the wrong word. It came to me as I was
> > thinking of the word '(uni)versal' and  wanting to displace that 'uni'
> > concept with a morpheme that reflected a dual or multilayered
> > 'being'/nature.
> >
> > "However, it seems to me, that we'd be better off talking about
> > multi-phylogenetic modes [along lines of (tri) MacLean or (quad) Jim
>Henry]
> > or even a bi-human nature...rather than uni."
> >
> > But, you're right re:
> >
> > >It's all part of one cycle, not two
> > > separate things but two limits approached alternately
> > > by one function.
> >
> > I guess the part that gets me stuck is that when we left-brainishly DO
>start
> > to categorize, we invariably want to say: the one function is a particular
> > way--rather than saying the one function is a dual way. Does that make
> > sense? It's early...
> > And also I think  you're so 'right on' re the polarity question.
> > Re the wimp factor: I think that these recent posts of mine are pretty
> > wimpy...You're not likely to hear a man say "my Floresian-sized brain" or
> > "I'm grappling" or "I don't think that was what I was talking about but
> > maybe it was." These were all genuine feelings I had, which I expressed
> > reluctantly, knowing that to male ear it would either be seen as phony
>(from
> > projection--since when do they ever feel such things?!!!!), or
>manipulative
> > in some way--since I'm a woman and why else express a weakness if not for
> > some gain?????
> > I'll go look at the Wimp link, thanks....
> > I just yesterday heard on news Arnold preaching to a Republican crowd re
> > something like: "You don't want a girly-man country, do you?? Yikes!
> >
> > All best,
> > Alice
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Christopher" <anonymous_animus at yahoo.com>
> > To: <paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
> > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 2:12 PM
> > Subject: [Paleopsych] binary nature
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Alice says:
> > > >>And/or we can take the more existential, romantic,
> > > transcendental, dualistic route and say, one of human
> > > nature's features is that it is binary.<<
> > >
> > > --I think "binary" is the wrong word. Humans, like
> > > everything else in nature, oscillate. We're like the
> > > tides. We go in, we go out. We're expressive, we're
> > > introspective. It's all part of one cycle, not two
> > > separate things but two limits approached alternately
> > > by one function.
> > >
> > > In our culture we tend to believe in willpower, and we
> > > keep trying to say "this is my final position." It
> > > fails, because even if one side of a polarity is held
> > > without wavering, it only increases the intensity of
> > > the opposite swing. Conservatives will be shocked when
> > > they discover their lock on power will only lead to a
> > > more intense anti-conservative (or perhaps
> > > anti-extreme?) backlash later on.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > PS: The Wimp Factor
> > >
> > > The author of a new and timely book reveals how
> > > American politics is shaped by a cultural definition
> > > of masculinity that is based on disavowing all things
> > > feminine.
> > >
> > > http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20343/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
> > > http://messenger.yahoo.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > paleopsych mailing list
> > > paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> > > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > paleopsych mailing list
> > paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
> > _______________________________________________
> > paleopsych mailing list
> > paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>
>_______________________________________________
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych




More information about the paleopsych mailing list