An article to read that is long and dry and makes me think a lot about the relationship between population change and personality type and also Ne and language


#1

The following article was a fun if dry read for anyone who likes 8,000 word philosophical discussions.

Okay, I’m not a philosopher but I’m pretty sure there is nothing to criticize in this essay philosophically.

(how I wish for two universes in which I could split test posting such a comment and not posting it to see if, as I anticipate, it pretty much forces a bunch of salty infjs to click a link they otherwise would not have and to persist in reading a dry article till they get to the good parts. That’s the intent.)

Here’s what I loved about it:

Descendants of Deviants

One way to describe what is revolutionary about Darwinism is that it inverts the status of the normal and the abnormal, or more precisely of typical and deviant specimens. On the assumption that species are stable and unchanging, unusual specimens are ‘abnormal’ or even monstrous: their deviance demands an explanation. But given the facts of evolution, nature is a continuum of variable individual things that resemble one another to a greater or lesser extent, depending mostly on the degree to which their lineages are close in ancestry, but also resulting from the inherent variability of all living things. In that perspective, no actual fact is more natural than any other. What requires explanation is not that some individuals are different from typical specimens, but that living things cluster around what seem to be typical specimens.

Language and the birth of Ne

What language does is to enable speakers to differ about propositions. Propositions ground inferences, which can be persuasive without being logically compelling, and on which two people can differ. Thus the invention of language, like other major transitions of evolution, generated an explosion of possibilities. When we can talk about what we want, we can also discuss, generalise, refine, extrapolate, analogise, creating fresh propositions to endorse.


#2

And luckily the article itself is only 3,900 words apprently!

The comment section is interesting. This comment is pretty Ne-Ti

Derryl Hermanutz:
I agree. Complexity - the interactions within and among complex dynamic systems - is reality. Everything is conditioned and changed by everything else. “We” - as individual human beings made of many trillions of individual living cells that are each made of billions of molecules - are complex dynamic systems. Our families and societies are complex dynamic systems. There is no “fixed nature” anywhere in this reality of complexity. Every human is unique, and changes in unique ways as he/she progresses from birth to death.

“We” mentally create “fixed natures” when we try to logically categorize things so we can understand them and manipulate and predict their future changes. Then we conflate our mental creations of fixed natures with actual reality which is constantly changing.

We categorize every one of the 7+ billion unique individual people on Earth as “humans”, and try to say something about what “humans” are like. Aside from saying we are complex dynamic systems made of cells, I don’t think there is anything that is “true” of every living human. So we create mental models of “ideal” or “average” humans - even if no real living human is actually like our models; and we think up values that humans should have, which would serve the interests of the imaginary model human we thought up.

A new word I learned and like thansk to this: stochastic. As in nature is stochastic, "randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely."
I like this because I have admiration of or deep-felt truth that “chaos” is a fundemental aspect of “reality”. :smiley:

I don’t know what I “got out” of the article, but I’m just swimming in the info it brings up and it speaks to my nihilistic soul.