The title of this article is an associative memory link to:
By Sigmund Freud.
Why? Well, because it tickles me a little, and because that’s how my memory works (making wide associations between things based on even very small hooks, then filter to the relevant ones), and because Serioso wishes to psychoanalyze me at a distance, and because it is clear that my “civilization” rules here are causing him “discontent”. Besides, I had to read it for some class once and it’s sitting on my shelf and in my brain, though I don’t remember why I was studying psych… though I really liked my sister’s Abnormal Psychology books when I read them. (She was home from college and I was about 8th grade and bored. But I digress, which is how my brain works on pretty much all topics, [though I don’t type them all, or even most of them] until I prune a digression from boredom, which is now…)
In another thread on Soros, Serioso worked very hard to derail the discussion from the topic, to me. Now I personally find me a fairly boring topic and not very relevant to anything, really (more on that below… the empty vessel…) but for some reason, Serioso is fascinated with me, and especially my inner workings. So, OK, in the interest of having that thread not become a narcissistic extispicy, that particular bit of augury will be put here in its own thread.
Sidebar on me about me:
Please forgive the Druid practice references if, for some unknown reason, they offend your sensibilities. Along the way in life I picked up a Master Druid credential and, well, sometimes those thoughts fit a situation… But no worries, I don’t practice sacrifice of living things, animal or otherwise, just the odd sacrificial Cabernet with Leg-O-Lamb ;-) (Mostly I’m just happy that at 50-something I still had a sense of whimsy) I’ll be scattering some bits from me, talking about me, through this posting, in the hope that it helps Serioso to “know me” enough to let go of the fixation on me. Or at least have a reference page to refer to when looking for more about me.
In the other posting, the discussion distilled down to this plaintive bleat, after I’d admonished that he ought to talk about topics, things, thoughts, and basically anything but me, as ‘I am not relevant’:
End of a long comment by me:
Just follow directions, do not “personalize” or insult folks traits and abilities and we ought to be fine. Hopefully the above will help you with those social skills…
Speak about TOPICS, Theories, assertions, facts, claims, etc. No worries.
Question someone’s ability, sanity, qualifications: BZZZZT!
Oh, and avoid the classical logical fallacies if you can, it saves time…
The response from Serioso:
20 September 2016 at 5:05 am (Edit)
No I don’t get it at all! My mission here is to understand your thinking processes, and to try to figure out why some of these processes seem (to me) irrational, even crazy. So I cannot avoid what you see as insults. I do not know how to avoid making these insults, nor do you. My comments are necessarily personal because I cannot reconcile my two views of you: One view is rational and intelligent, the other irrational to the point of stupidity. It is therefore impossible for me to avoid comments about the person, because that is what interests me the most. So I plan to continue my questions about your ability, sanity, qualifications, etc. These matter to me.
That exchange is the reason for this posting, and for my “self explanatory” remarks at the top about how I chose the title, and the sidebar on choice of Druid terms of art for their descriptive imagery. Since Serioso wants it to be “about me”, and despite my having done one of these postings before https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/its-not-about-me/ (which really is about me), he wants more; so I’m going to annotate this post with some bits about how my cognition functions just so he has a ‘window on my world’. Though I doubt it will help.
Why NOT about me?
My basic persona is humble. I’m fond of Buddhism. “Be the empty vessel” speaks to me. “Mu! The Question Is Ill Formed!” is a fundamental part of my cognition. “Wanting what you can not have is the source of discontent” (something Serioso ought to ponder as he strives to understand inside of me). I also come from Amish roots where “Pridefulness is a sin” and find much risk of pridefulnesses in talking about me. I avoid pride, but some folks take facts as boast and then troubles begin. So at the risk of my mortal soul (we left Amish long ago, but were not shunned… Grandad was a working blacksmith, and that made him OK even if he wasn’t Amish, and Grandma kept a more or less Amish house. But I digress…) I’ll post some things about my abilities.
So we must first start with the fact that “there is no me”.
Certainly, there is a body, and a brain, and some kind of cognition that happens inside of it. But in terms of Ego (to use the Freudian aspect) there just isn’t. That is a fantasy created ex machina. At best, I see myself as a logic engine with a support system (that often demands attention to things like washing and sleeping via shoving discontents at the cognition engine against its will…) To quest for “who I am”, is a Mu! quest, a dive into a fantasy and void. “I’m the urban spaceman baby and now here’s the twist, I … Don’t… Exist!”… This is not MY novel thought. It isn’t even a new thought. It has been around for thousands of years. Embrace it. To understand “me”, internalize it. “I am but an egg in the process of becoming”.
I point at the Grosse Pointe Blank movie in the prior link, and in particular where the star complains ~”Why does everyone always think it’s about me?!”. The reason I point to it is because that is how it all impresses me. Feed data to a logic engine, find associative memory links, reduce to subset that contains all the information pertinent to the question and as little else as possible, type. There is no ‘me’ in that process. Yet Serioso wishes to find the ‘me’ in it… and is discontented when he can not get what he desires…
Oh, and also staunchly refuses to address the only bits that matter: Input data, associated memory findings, logic set (dumping things like non-sequiturs and ad hominems), reduction filter (I was extraordinarily high scoring on the GMAT portion that just looks at relevancy of a datum to the problem solution). All THOSE bits result in the posting he can’t believe comes from me (due to it not matching some ill described things he believes a priori…)
All of that, and a bit more, makes it very hard for ‘me’ to talk about me. How do you talk about something that doesn’t exist?
I can talk about the mechanism. I can talk about feelings. I can talk about the software ( as in: I had a formal symbolic logic class at university. For extra credit, I derived NOR and NAND operators in their symbology since they were lacking, at least in the class, and I was familiar with them from the semiconductor class I’d taken at the local Junior College while in my senior year… of high school…) But what of that has any meaning about this ‘me’ that Serioso quests for? I have no feelings about NOR and NAND beyond the vague feeling they are useful. I rarely use the formal logic tools anymore (mostly since writing them down is slow and simply having the brain set up the syllogism works faster). Saying that I’m that set of hardware, data, and logic gates doesn’t satisfy him. I’m at a loss.
When your core wisdom has realized “there is no me”, just some stickyware, it becomes very hard to talk about what is not real.
Sidebar on Links:
The frequent reader will have noticed a few more random links in this post than in most. I’m using that as an example of the associative memory effect. It’s what ‘fires off’ in the brain when I’m thinking. The nice thing is that hyperlinks let you do something similar in print. Now inside the stickyware, it just comes across as very fast flashes of visual memory, or auditory for things like songs, or smell and taste memories if I use words like chocolate or skunk. So, to understand ‘me’, or at least the hardware / memory parts, internalize the idea of constant flashes of association with every noun and many verbs. Swan Dive has a visual of a man on a board about 10 meters up, and the dive. Swim has a sensation of the pool water over my skin (about 6? years old?) and cool and wet, then a secondary echo of me at about 20 in a wet suit off Coos Bay Oregon, 40 feet down and purple lips from the cold, and shooting a Cabezon… that Cabezon linking to the web page on it that I read years later AND to the taste of it that evening…) Eventually the memory cascade dies down. (That bit on swimming happens in about 1/4 second or less). That cascade of associations then gets tied into understanding “whatever” it was that was the initiating question… It may be ‘that aspe thing‘… I don’t know how it works inside other folks brains.
But say the words “symbolic logic” and I’m back in class, visual of the prof and the paper in front of me, then in the dorm room reading the book, then… all in a rapid cascade. The chain of synapses fires, and is gone. “Like tears, in the rain”
and that clip plays on my internal screen…
The Hubris or The Facts?
Then there’s that thorny problem that I’m not normal. (Where normal is ‘average’).
It isn’t hubris on my part. I don’t have any real ego tied up in it. I’ve often said that “Intelligence is highly over rated; it does not bring joy.” or something similar. Yet “Reality just is. -E.M.Smith”, and I must acknowledge it.
In high school I took the Kuder Aptitude and Kuder Preference tests. (Hope I spelled that right, it’s been about 45 years…). I scored 99.9+ percentile (i.e. off of their scale) on everything but one that was 99.1 IIRC, and the other one, my worst score, 86 percentile in clerical. (Likely because I would get bored with string searching and the mind would wander…)
I know my I.Q. score (the ‘councilor’ didn’t realize I can read things upside down, or backward, or mirror imaged… and a glance at the upside down angled away ledger book in front of him was enough for me to pick them up. No, I’m not going to share them. I was told not to, and, well, it seems like good advice. But they are well away from average… both verbal and non-verbal nearly identical (within 1/10 of the error band).
On the PSAT scores, I was exactly the same, verbal and non, and well above average.
On the SAT scores, I was also exactly the same. They qualify me for Mensa. (99.5 percentile is their cut-off? I need to apply to them some day…)
On the GMAT, my score was high enough that Wharton School of Business solicited me. I’d not applied to them. (Some life issues caused me to not accept. I was making nearly 6 figures a year, and they wanted $50,000 a year (plus living expenses), that’s $150,000 a year net swing and I didn’t have it and would not accept that much debt. Then there was the new relationship with my now spouse…)
So those are the facts. I have hardware that works well. I’ve tried to be fairly careful about the software and got a complete and functional set (in school focused on useful things, like calculus, chemistry, logic, and avoided crap things when possible, though I did have one ill fated Sociology class where I learned they can’t think clearly… I’ve also been very careful about letting crap data in… that FORTRAN class in college and those dirty data traps in the homework had a big impact…)
So that’s “just the facts”. What do I think about them?
I think I’m lucky to have good hardware, I’m grateful to the folks who taught me good software and how to keep a tidy mind (special mention to Mr. McGuire in high school Chem & Physics – he was a champ at calling out Bull Shit and error.) I’m sad that high IQ is more burden than help in finding happiness and friends. (One of the ‘draws’ to Mensa is, as one member put it “Everyone gets your jokes!”) Imagine life where nobody gets your jokes, understands your explanations, or cares about what interests you. That was the first 18 years of my life. Well, really, about 16 for the explaining. Then I started tutoring other kids in math and science and learned how to explain things well…
BTW, that’s another point: Doing the math tutor thing, I’d look at an algebra problem and write down the answer. Then when I had to teach someone how to do it, I realized I didn’t know how to do it. It just happened. By finding ways to “explain how to do it” I taught myself some formulaic ways to go about it. That was the first time I realize not everyone has the “flash” of understanding. Many just plod through methods by hand… So to “understand me”, if you are a plodder, will be very hard, as explaining the “flash” has never worked well. Things just fit, or they don’t, and when they fit, the result is visible. FWIW, I don’t remember any case where “the flash” was wrong when subjected to a longer method proof. It has been wrong on details on first introduction to a field when I’m just learning the ropes of it, but usually it is wrong in a simplified way and does point to a ‘dig here!’ for more elaboration.
So given that, how likely is it that someone who is not 2 or 3 sigmas above the norm, who likely doesn’t have “the flash”, and who believes in the importance of the Ego (and who may not have the associative memory Aspe like firing off all the time) will come to have true understanding of the non-me of me? IMHO, the best response would be: “Mu! The question is ill formed” but I’ll leave it for him to reach that stage of enlightenment.
Specifics To The Quest(ion)
Note the parenthetical. I often have nested parenthetical thoughts. They come in “a flash’ too. 1/10 second or less kinds of things. (Now you can see how painfully slow typing it out can be…). So when thinking of a title “Specifics To Serioso’s Question” and “Specifics To His Quest” pop up in one ‘flash’ as a parenthetical construct, then I drop out the proper name putting in “The” and I’m done. Usually about that point I translate the parenthetical to normal English and “move on”, but here I’ve left it intact as an example of thought process. But internally I always hear the dual echo of “Quest” and “Question” whichever one I’ve typed for this heading…
So I had said, basically, speak to data, logic, processing, or filtering, not about me or personal traits. Serioso can’t (or won’t) ‘go there’. OK, here’s the dissection.
No I don’t get it at all!
I suspect Serioso is quite intelligent enough to ‘get it’ for “data, logic, processing, filtering”, but in fact meant “Oh No Mr. Bill, that’s not what I want!” Sloppy, at best, and being charitable. (Either that, or he’s way less smart than I think.)
My mission here is to understand your thinking processes,
Man on a mission, eh? And self centered too. I, and all of you others, are expected to indulge in a personal mission… OK, you get one posting, this one. (Well, really two, I went through the ‘not me’ one long ago, but I guess you forgot, so ‘one more’…)
Also note the “your thinking processes”, as though there is more than one “thinking” and it is a linear “process”.
First off, I just think. It’s a gestalt thing. I can also do tricks, like calculus and cooking, but those are processes, not thinking. So “on a mission” to decompose a gestalt into component parts… i.e. tilt at windmills.
and to try to figure out why some of these processes seem (to me) irrational, even crazy.
Well, first off, you never bothered to look at the processes in postings, nor the data, nor much of anything of substance posted. Just toss insults at me, denigrate my character, intelligence, or sanity, and then bleat about it. OK, we all have our faults…
BUT, what you also seem to have been impervious to is that I have a set of certifications that make such bleats nothing but noise on the wind. (That last sets this “flash” playing in the sound centers of the mind…)
Along with the intelligence certification by many agencies listed above, I had hours of psych interviews and the MMPI, and more, to be selected for a NASA study to design the tests used to select shuttle astronauts. I’m NASA (the old, reliable one) certified sane, and a nice non-violent guy.
Now you can accept that, and see the absurdity in the “crazy” statement of yours, or reject it and continue wandering in the desert. Your choice. Just wander without me, please… if you chose that path. This is the 4th or 5th time I’ve pointed this out, yet you still like the ‘crazy’ and ‘insane’ line of attack. Slow learner I guess…
But back to the syllogism…
Let’s look at some words.
[implied subject “I”] try to [figure out why] [noun clause] seem to “me” irrational, even crazy.
Note that this is “all about you” and not about me? I’m only in the noun clause and only as some ill defined “processes” of thought that in fact are indivisible in the gestalt. Now, just for moment, please, consider this:
For YOU to understand why YOU have feelings and / or attitudes about ME has a whole lot more to do with YOU than with ME.
We are all, each and every one of us, 100% responsible for our own feeling, wants, desires, attitudes, and anything else inside our head. I can not “make you angry” and you can not “upset me”. (That is the fallacy of PC speech, BTW, since only the offended can cause their own offense; to accuse someone else of doing it is daft. A Mu! thing.) Only I can let me choose to become upset, and only you can choose to make yourself angry through your choices of response to the world. (Basic Buddhism… really). So I choose to be centered, calm, and happy. (Pretty much all the time… I like it that way) You have chosen to “want what you cannot have” [understanding the ‘parts’ of a gestalt | knowing the inside of another persons brain | find fault in others to explain your fault] and so are unhappy. Sorry, I can’t help you with that. Only you can look inside yourself to find why you make yourself unhappy and seek what does not exist. Only you, the chooser of your mental state, can enquire into it and explain it.
Now, if your puzzlement is about some aspect of the data I selected to display, the associations I make of that source to other sources, or the filtering I’ve done to “leave bits out” (often called “Chiefio forgot” by those less attuned..), that I can help you with. Thus my emphasis on describing the work product posted and inquiry about it, and not “about me”.
So I cannot avoid what you see as insults.
Bull Shit. Flat out lies. It isn’t hard, at all, to avoid saying “You are stupid” “You are ignorant” “You are crazy”. People do it all day long every single day. I’m doing it right now, in fact… It is normal social grace. YOU CHOOSE to say those things, repeatedly, for your own reasons.
For example, it isn’t hard at all to say:
“I think your evaluation of Soros and his motivations is wrong, he is a fine man because of [his deeds]”
“You must be an ignorant idiot to think Soros is evil, or you are crazy”.
Very easy to choose… Well within your intellectual capacity, if not your emotional quotient.
Now I’ve spent a good 30 years forming, leading, coaching and counseling teams (mostly work teams, but also Pee-Wee Hockey… great fun, that) and happen to know my E.Q. is also quite high. And know that others, not so much, is usually true. I suggest you get an assessment done, it will help you greatly.
I do not know how to avoid making these insults,
Despite my laying it out for you with great clarity. Once again:
Do not address “to the person”, do not “personalize it”, do not attack a person’s attributes (such as intelligence, sanity, capability, etc. etc.) Basically, avoid the Alinsky Method.
I’ve chosen to Ruthlessly stamp it out whenever I encounter it. It is evil. Expect that.
BTW, “ruthlessly” always fires off “I wonder where Ruth is?” ;-)
nor do you.
False. I did it just now. (Avoided expressing an insult). I’ve done it a dozen time above. I have also chosen a few times to put one in, since it breaks the boredom, and since they seem to motivate some folks to further learning… though you seem a bit impervious… Knowing how is not the same as choosing… If you truly don’t know how, I pity you and those you interact with. I suspect you are employing a debate device instead, though. (Feel free to correct that suspicion, and prove your limits.)
My comments are necessarily personal because I cannot reconcile my two views of you:
My [behaviour] because I [limited ability] about you…
Notice something again? The subject of that sentence is Serioso, not me… So if you would understand Serioso, why are you looking at me? Wrong target. It is YOUR limited ability to understand that’s the problem, not the “me” it can not grasp.
One view is rational and intelligent, the other irrational to the point of stupidity.
See, now you could just as easily have said:
“One view is rational and intelligent, the other seems to me irrational to the point I lost the plot. Please help.”
This puts the focus where it belongs, on you losing the plot from time to time and not following the connections. That I can help elaborate. However, helping you understand why you find me irrational for your lack of understanding, by looking at me, that is beyond my ability.
It is therefore impossible for me to avoid comments about the person,
“Argue for your limitations, and you shall keep them. -E.M.Smith”
Grow up a bit. Please.
because that is what interests me the most.
Well internet porn interests most people the most (per internet statistics and the $6 Million? price tag for sex.com) yet folks manage to not post it here… This place is, generally, for what interests ME the most. It is my notebook on the world. Feel free to study it to get clue, but do not feel free to insult me, or others, in your quest to attribute to others what is inside your own limitations.
So I plan to continue my questions about your ability, sanity, qualifications, etc. These matter to me.
As I have fully answered (well, mostly fully… I’ve left out some Community College classes and some technical training in things like router configs…) those above. No, I’m not going to post my transcripts nor my resume. They will show a pretty good student at University, a Bachelors Econ., a State College (teaching college) for the teaching theory and Community College Teachers Certificate, and a 1/2 finished MBA. All with good grades. That I learned ASL and See Sign at a local J.C. isn’t all that important… Nor is the Ph.D. Religion as it isn’t an academic qualification.
You also have my sanity and E.Q. rank, via that NASA study. (I’ll leave it for you to find the published peer reviewed paper about it… it isn’t a secret, but likely only in paper form as internet publishing wasn’t that hot then).
And you know a lot about my professional qualification that I’ve posted over the years while you have been a reader.
So any further inquiry along those lines will be met with:
We’ve already fully covered that HERE (where HERE is a link to this posting.
Now you can be a pig headed obstreperous pill and ignore that…
For illustration, I’ll now translate that last sentence to the polite form, so Serioso can see how to do it:
Now you can be stubborn about this topic, continue to bring it up in inappropriate threads…
See how it works? It really isn’t all that hard to avoid “insults to the person”, if you really want to…
But bring it up, and you will get a link back to here. For any given posting, if you discuss the input data, the associations made, the conclusions reached, etc. well, that’s a discussion worth having as sometimes folks find interesting things I’ve missed. (Really missed, not just filtered. Hey, it happens ;-)
In Conclusion or Bits & Pieces
I have strong “novelty seeking behavior”. Now, since I know pretty much all there is to know about me, I find myself a boring as hell topic. Just not interested in me.
That, BTW, is also why I have postings on so many different things. I have a “Squirrel!” moment and just run off chasing after some interesting new thoughts until I’ve caught them in the butterfly net. Then I’ll summarize it and put up a posting. That’s what I like to do.
Now Serioso wants me to spend my time picking navel lint out of my eyes. Sorry, just not interested.
I’ve said all I have to say already. Most of it here, some in the earlier postings.
“Life is too short to drink bad wine” and frankly, talking about me is thin gruel; and I certainly don’t need piss & vinegar added to that.
I may amend this posting over time, as more things come to me, or some may just end up in comments. But this is THE place to ask questions about me, how and what I think, etc. etc.
Any insult sentences will be ruthlessly deleted as they are semantically null
(Oh, I forgot to mention, I had a formal linguistics class and loved it…)
So don’t be surprised if over time, more bits and pieces like that linguistics note get added here.
Subscribe to feed