Musings on human society

[Brilliand]

In order to understand others, you must change quickly - more quickly than they do, to be specific, and in a way that allows you to constantly mesh with them. A corollary to this is that if you want others to understand you, you must change very little to allow them to keep up. Thus, smooth interaction between friends relies both on change and stability. There are a few ways out of this dilemma:

• The Enemy (Chaotic/Antisocial): One who gives up stability entirely to stay one step ahead of his adversary is the most deadly opponent. Such a person does not, for hir purposes, need to be understood - s/he simply keeps the advantage.
• The Reliable Friend (Stable/Social): This person changes very little, allowing others to adapt to hir. Such a person has difficulty reaching out to new friends, but is very comfortable for hir existing friends.
• The Adapter (Chaotic/Social): This person changes constantly, adapting to each person s/he meets. The fact that no one really understands hir is hopefully made up for by hir ability to deliberately get along with everyone.
• The Hermit (Stable/Antisocial): This person takes on the role of a force of nature, not responding to others and steadily following a patterned life. Others learn to not interfere, but often aren't bothered, since it's easy to not interfere.
• The Ever-Shifting Balance: Meta-chaos! In its simplest form, society constantly overcompensates by producing too many Reliables, then producing too many Adapters, then the cycle repeats. However, humans are more intelligent than this - small pockets of society follow the pattern adapt to each other->stabilize and trust each other to remain the way you adapted to them. Thus we have:
  
  • Homeless, seeking to stabilize
  • Stable, expecting matching stability from others

Here's another variable: Prediction vs. Acceptance. This is correlated with psychological distance - those who are closer with each other will be better able to predict each other, whereas someone you can't really predict at all is not someone you have a close relationship with. Tangential thoughts:

• What of IEE-SLI? This Irrational dyad is akin to an Adapter-Reliable dyad, and I would be surprised to hear that the SLI was able to predict the IEE's actions - and yet, every dual relationship can be close! For now I conclude, tentatively, that my impression of this dyad was wrong, and the SLI does learn to predict the IEE's behavior as their relationship grows closer.
• Non-prediction with non-acceptance, while possible, is stupid.

Well, I got tired of this while musing about what an Accepting Active Social Stable type would be like, so I guess I'm done.

[Creepy-male]

Warning -- alot of thinking

I don't think you have to "change" to understand others, you can objectively understand others by analysis... but there is something to this. Let me continue....

I think its misleading to paint this idea of change in regards to understanding others and them understanding you. I think a more accurate definition of "change" as it applies to Stability/Chaos is based around with the relationship of a person and their environment.


----------------------------------------------------------------

A stable person is one which doesn't undergo change in its environment, because they have established an equillibrium with their environment. They have cemented themselves in a particular environment and have established a routine equillibrium within the society they exist in.

A chaotic person is one which hasn't established this equillibrium with their environment, they are in transit towards a state of equillibrium and as a result will preturb their environment and adapt themselves.

The enemy and adapter are chaotic, its obvious their effect on society will be to disturb it from its state of equillibirium as a result of the adapter/enemies perception of being out of equillibrium with their social environment.

The reliable/hermit will not disturb this state of equillibrium because they have established themselves well with respect to their environment.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Now in this regard what is Antisocial and Social?

Social is participation in the environment they exist in.....

Antisocial is not-participation in the environment.....

However doesn't it seem as though the enemy would "participate" in the sense of effecting those in a particular society

it would, but the enemy wouldn't acknowledge the conventions and participate along with these expectations, exactly the source of the lack of stability

while the hermit is stable, he doesn't participate

the reliable participates, but the adapter.... he will participate, but not truely as he modifies his behavior in regards to society, rather than the reverse

the enemy modifies societies behavior but refuses to modify his own

So

Hermit: Stable, Non-participant
Relaible: Stable, Participant
Enemy: Unstable, Participant
Adapter: Unstable, Non-participant

So in this context antisocial means going against society....
if you go against society stablity can only exist when you don't participate
but if you do you'll disturb society

Social means going with society.....
if your unstable this requires you to constant change to meet the demands of society
if your stable this requires you manifest social expectations and values

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now Social/Antisocial is interpretted as "Direction of going with society"

Social is parallel to society
Antisocial is antiparallel

Stable/Chaotic is interpretted as "Being in or out of equillibrium with society"

Chaotic is out of equillibrium
Stable is in equillibrium


Now I can interpret each type

Enemy => Flows against society and is out of equillibrium
Hermit => Flows against society and is in equillibirum
Reliable => Flows with society and is in equillibrium
Adaptable => Flows with society and is out of equillibrium

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider a hermit who makes contact with society (disturbs equillibrium), but doesn't change his views

Hermit => Enemy

Consider a hermit who changes his views (flows parallel with society)

Hermit => Reliable

Hermit =/=> Adapatable



Now to sum it up

Hermit =/=> adaptable
Hermit => Reliable (flows with society)
Hermit => Enemy (makes contact with society)

Enemy =/=> Reliable
Enemy => Hermit (taken out of contact - changes equillibrium)
Enemy => Adaptable (flows with society - changes views)

Reliable =/=> Enemy
Reliable => Hermit (flows against society - changes views)
Reliable => Adaptable (taken out of contact - changes equillibrium)

Adaptable =/=> Hermit
Adaptable => Enemy (flows against society)
Adaptable => Reliable (put into contact - changes equillibrium)

Under this interpretation We see adaptable and hermits are opposites

Being an adaptable means never being isolated, but it means conforming at the cost of internal chaos
Being a hermit means never having to adapt, but it means being as far away from society as possible

enemies and reliables are opposites

Being a reliable means never being an enemy, but it means establishing a perfect relationship with society
Being an enemy means never being reliable, it results from being the natural opposite of a perfect relationship with society

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a perfect society everyone is a reliable friend of each other

so the map is from

Enemies ======> Reliable

Adaptables and Hermits are pathways to accomplish that which conflict, but upon resolving these conflicts they achieve reliability.


A typical society is divided into domains consisting of reliables which glue these domains or subcultures together. These domains relate to each other in a similar dynamic to interpersonal relations..... interesting being an enemy with respect to a domain A which is an enemy to domain B, doesn't nessicarily imply being a reliable of B.

------------------------------------------------------------

Whats worse is consider the system of only two people or only two domains

A is the enemy of B which consider themselves to be the reliable
But to A they are the reliable to themselves while B is the enemy

What is the objective concept of reliability when the society is split even like this?

this is the underlying confusion which makes is very hard for perfection to exist in a society, without conflicting individuals and subfactions.

For a perfect society to exist you'de have to have everyone coalesses into a single domain of which they are the reliables of.... and this is the underlying idea of religions talking about the kingdom of god..... that being the single domain.

In reality I don't expect a perfect society though, plus every religion has there own concept of the kingdom of god, so its a bit ummm confusing/difficult to consider this.

[Brilliand]

Whats worse is consider the system of only two people or only two domains

A is the enemy of B which consider themselves to be the reliable
But to A they are the reliable to themselves while B is the enemy

What is the objective concept of reliability when the society is split even like this?

this is the underlying confusion which makes is very hard for perfection to exist in a society, without conflicting individuals and subfactions.

For a perfect society to exist you'de have to have everyone coalesses into a single domain of which they are the reliables of.... and this is the underlying idea of religions talking about the kingdom of god..... that being the single domain.

In reality I don't expect a perfect society though, plus every religion has there own concept of the kingdom of god, so its a bit ummm confusing/difficult to consider this.

So the problem reduces to the problem of standardization... hmm, but it's possible to take on any one of these roles objectively from the viewpoint of all societies; a Reliable might follow a simple protocol for what he does in response to what signals, like a robot... a Hermit might do the same thing every day regardless of what anyone else does... an Enemy might carefully keep everyone guessing as a form of extreme paranoia... an Adaptable might, of course, take on the society of whoever he's talking to. Only in balance doe the roles become society-specific.

Also, I think in a perfect society some variation is needed... some tendency toward Adaptability in everyone, perhaps, so that the society can advance.

[mikemex]

Reliable > Adapter.

[Aylen]

I am a reliable hermit or vice versa.

[Olduvai]

[Aylen]

@Johannes Bloem



Thanks for the reminder to watch more TV. The (my) brain is like a supercomputer, able to process vast amounts of imagery and symbolism and sort it all into folders. If it is not constantly stimulated with new imagery it goes obsolete.

[Olduvai]

@Johannes Bloem



Thanks for the reminder to watch more TV. The (my) brain is like a supercomputer, able to process vast amounts of imagery and symbolism and sort it all into folders. If it is not constantly stimulated with new imagery it goes obsolete.

Nature = imagery
Language = symbolism

[Aylen]

Nature = imagery
Language = symbolism

or vice versa.

[Eliza Thomason]

From this list, I concluded I am somewhere between Adapter and Reliable. So it was interesting when you wrote this:

• What of IEE-SLI? This Irrational dyad is akin to an Adapter-Reliable dyad, and I would be surprised to hear that the SLI was able to predict the IEE's actions - and yet, every dual relationship can be close! For now I conclude, tentatively, that my impression of this dyad was wrong, and the SLI does learn to predict the IEE's behavior as their relationship grows closer.
• Non-prediction with non-acceptance, while possible, is stupid.

SLI and I are spending a LOT more time together lately and yes, its true, my actions are harder to predict than his but he is very observant of me and notices my patterns and motives, more than anyone else ever has.

Well, I got tired of this while musing about what an Accepting Active Social Stable type would be like, so I guess I'm done.

[Scapegrace]

This thread is mind bogglingly idiotic. I think I just murdered 23,000 brain cells.

[Olduvai]

This thread is mind bogglingly idiotic. I think I just murdered 23,000 brain cells.

Lets be honest, you had nowhere near 23,000 to begin with