yetineti

I don’t feel this way mainly because I just don’t feel as attached to the type as much as I present. It is just helpful, sometimes. I don’t actually believe in most of its capability, what it says about friends or relationship matches, etc. It is kind of meme like—but helpful on a basic level. In reality, it’d be impossible to call me an ENFP—even the test has shows I’m around 50% for the E F & P. I’ve had INTP, ENTP, INFP & INFJ all be results before (I’ve taken it for classes, fun, etc. over 10 years). + different personality tests just conflict or layer odd. I’d be an ENFP 5w4, for example. A very social personality to be so reserved and investigating.

I think there’s a sort of limbo between yellow and green where green knows all of this but has not integrated the yellow lack of blame. So, yes, there is a lot for them to admit and I did not mean to suggest there is zero correlation to intelligence. However, the model is not really supposed to correlate to intelligence… Also, green already understands those people better than those people understand themselves, comparatively.

You guys need to watch “Pantheon,” on Netflix.

Actually, they do understand the mechanisms behind others actions. That’s kind of the whole point of Green. They understand that empathizing with certain people is going to lead to them getting abused. Green fundamentally understands as many perspectives as any other stage. In fact, most of tier two is just integration and less moralizing and critiques from Green. There is really not a whole lot of intellectual gain after Green. They just essentially realize they were right and blaming people or generalizing does very little. Which, to your point, can seem more intelligent. However, I’d make a distinction between more intelligent and more integrated. Also, I’d make a distinction between someone’s content becoming more intelligent and their structure.

@Natasha Tori Maru @Joseph Maynor That maybe why the three of us communicate so well. There is also the whole ‘compatibility’ chart thing and I remember my own: ENFP does best with INFJ or INTJ—ironically. So maybe I just love you guys! I think it’s a better gauge of communication compatibility than romantic usually, though lol.

I think this was a good lesson for everyone, including myself: provocation is not profundity.

@LordFall Thanks for opening up.

Maybe it is because of the nonlinear relationship between intelligence, social consensus and value.

AI will not become AGI until the training data becomes the training supply.

Yes, but I will also concede to his point that it very much appears insecure from me not to receive valid points—for any reason. But it should also be recognized that people’s attention is earned and if a point is trying to be made, you must know who it is being made to. Points don’t make themselves to people or exist independently from people. A point to no one is a point to nowhere. Generalizations or assumptions can be a huge turnoff. I used to do sales. Identify plot. Relate to resolution. Suggest, never assert. I hated sales, though.

Yes. I prefer more relational questions in the future. I could have probably short circuited this earlier, however. Never attack an ENFPs character or an INTPs framework! Relate, discuss—never assume. 😁

So busy trying to disarm each other, neither of us noticed we’d already exchanged weapons.

TLDR: Kyle and I basically agree on value. I somehow turned a misunderstanding into a month-long epistemology project. Anyway, I can fix your dryer now.

@LordFall This was never really a conversation about value. However, revealing my values may explain the gap. The big reveal: we pretty much agree. I don’t think people have to provide value to have value. However, everyone should probably be trying to provide more value than baseline. The implication someone can sit around is ridiculous. Stage Green bypassing is ridiculous. Maintaining baseline forever is ridiculous. I also don’t think I ever really disagreed with your values framework. I’ve spent about a month asking questions about it because I was curious how you were getting from a framework that increasingly sounded pretty reasonable to me—competence, contribution, responsibility, solving problems, creating abundance—to fairly confident assumptions about me from very limited information. The more I understood your actual framework, the less I disagreed with it. You don’t even seem to hold yourself to some magical higher standard. You seem to apply basically the same expectations to yourself. So my question was never really, “How do I defeat this value system?” It was: How did this value system produce those assumptions about me? That has been my loop in this whole thing. — Where I probably differ is that I rarely use value as a comparative human scoreboard. I have goals and standards. Obviously I compare sometimes. But I mostly ask whether I am becoming more capable, useful, independent, responsible, skilled, helpful, etc. relative to my own circumstances and potential. I use comparison sparingly because it gets dangerous extremely fast when the frame is wrong. You are taking a snapshot of somebody without knowing everything that produced the snapshot. That doesn’t mean edge cases destroy the paradigm. I almost think the opposite: the better a paradigm becomes, the more selectively I think it should be applied. A bad framework fails obviously. A sophisticated framework can explain a LOT. Precisely because it can explain a lot, it can start absorbing contradictory information and producing plausible explanations for almost anything. That’s where I get cautious: use the paradigm to generate questions, use reality to determine whether the paradigm applies, and don’t use the paradigm to determine what reality must have been. — And this is where the ENFP thing is actually relevant to me. “Campaigner.” “Champion.” Whatever haha. Obviously I’m not claiming four letters scientifically prove my motives or personality, but the shorthand fits me pretty damn well: people, possibilities, connections, meaning, constantly asking “what about this angle?” And yeah, I can overthink the shit out of something when I’m fascinated by it. So me spending a month asking you questions about value wasn’t necessarily me evading a values conversation. From my perspective it was almost the opposite: I was interested enough in your framework to keep turning it around trying to figure out exactly how it worked. I’m fascinated by this whole thing. I don’t think you’re a bad person at all. I actually admire quite a bit of what you’re trying to do around competence, responsibility, contribution and results. These particular traps just caught my attention because I had never really come across them this cleanly before. I’ve argued plenty in my life lol, especially with family, but this felt unusually strong while somehow remaining disconnected from the thing I thought I was asking. And obviously I got caught in it too. Early on I started defending myself instead of just figuring out what the hell was happening. I was trying to explain myself, understand where you were coming from and defend against the assumptions at the same time. That made everything messier. These traps can happen to anyone. That’s part of why I find them interesting. — There’s also a funny personal connection with the INTP thing, but I don’t want to compare you and my dad too much. My dad is an INTP and a master welder. Extremely mechanical. I was hilariously not mechanical AT ALL. He constantly tried to teach me that stuff and I avoided it. The useful contrast isn’t really “you and my dad.” It’s inside my own life. I found other ways to provide value long before I became mechanically useful, then gradually developed the exact side of myself I had avoided. So there is something funny to me about now having this giant conversation about competence, systems and value with another person identifying as an INTP while I’m finally becoming mechanically competent myself. That’s about as far as I’d take the comparison haha. — In high school, my parents divorced. Dad and my much older sister moved out. My mom babysat kids in the house. I felt like I was in an intellectual bubble between the age gaps and family situation, and I had a lot to figure out. I could ace tests, but decided: fuck college. I skipped plenty of homework to work more shifts, help my mom around the house, or frankly prioritize my own mental health at the time. From some external snapshots, you could probably call parts of that a “low-value” trajectory. But it was extremely valuable. I helped people through really hard periods, kept things functioning, and learned an absurd amount about people, relationships, responsibility and myself. I wasn’t just going to sit around and watch people I loved remain helpless in their own victim mindsets either. I wanted them okay. Eventually I realized: I need to help myself too. — Leo had already helped me a lot here, but I needed a harder test. I moved out and have lived alone for years. I delivered for a store as their only driver and, shit, made around $4k/month for a while. But my car was expensive to maintain and I didn’t really feel like I brought much unique value personally. Anyone could basically do it. Living alone also makes responsibility impossible to abstract away: dishes dirty? Mine. Laundry? Mine. Bills? Mine. Car broken? Mine. People around me also started stabilizing and didn’t need me as much. So eventually I made myself start working on my own car. Turns out mechanics is basically high-stakes Legos. I still didn’t feel useful enough, so I picked up warehouse work: 140°F trailers, hundreds of packages an hour, 1 lb to 200 lbs. Somebody had to do it. Eventually I still felt like I was underselling myself, so I quit delivery and literally let AI interrogate me about what I was good at and where I could provide more value. It found a maintenance application nearby. I drove there without really looking into it further and knocked on the door. — For roughly the last year I’ve been maintaining several multi-million-dollar facilities. I’ve taught myself plumbing, electrical, fire systems, compliance, appliances, mechanical troubleshooting, vendor coordination and a pile of other shit I absolutely did not know five years ago. AND I get to apply the communication and people skills I already had. They joke about shutting down if I leave. It’s a dying trade. Reliable people willing to learn are hard to find. I still help my family and deliberately maintain jobs with flexible schedules. I already have offers for around 33% more income, and I’m working on arrangements where certain jobs could pay close to double my regular rate. I’ve also been thinking about getting back into music or eventually running my own maintenance company. My dad, naturally, finds all of this hilarious because I barely knew a flathead from a Phillips a few years ago. — So yeah: I care A LOT about providing value. Probably too much sometimes. I’m constantly asking whether I’m more capable than I was, whether I’m solving harder problems, whether I’m making things easier for people around me, whether I’m actually using what I have, where I’m avoiding growth, and where I could contribute more. That is much closer to my framework than asking, “Am I higher value than this other guy?” And that is precisely why I consciously decided not to devalue myself by spending this entire dispute explaining my value to you. Not because I couldn’t. Because that was never the question I was trying to answer. I wanted you to explain the assumptions you had already made. You kept coming back to some version of “tell me your value so I can determine whether my judgment was wrong,” while I kept asking: What justified the judgment before you knew the answer? Those are different questions. — And this is what I meant by my immature “You are trapped” comment. I already suspected we valued things similarly. The longer this went on, the more obvious that became. You’ve been trying to clarify the value framework because you thought I was challenging it. But I wasn’t challenging your values framework. I was challenging your assumptions. That distinction is basically the entire disagreement. And now I’ve finally done the thing I intentionally refused to do during the argument. I told you my values framework. I told you how I think about contribution. I told you how I actually live it. And it’s basically your framework. I think people should become capable. I think people should solve problems. I think people should contribute. I think victim mindsets can destroy people. I think bypassing responsibility is destructive. I’m actively trying to provide more value, and I think I already provide quite a lot. I just don’t generally use that framework to take snapshots of other people and rank them. — And again, this isn’t an indictment of you. I don’t think you’re a bad person. I actually admire a lot of this stuff. I also don’t think these traps mean anything uniquely terrible about you. I got caught in them too by defending myself instead of recognizing what was happening. That’s why I’m fascinated. The framework itself is pretty reasonable. The interesting question is how a reasonable framework produced the assumptions in the first place, and what happens to those assumptions now that you actually have the information. That’s really all I’ve been trying to understand. And the funniest part is still: we basically agree on value.

@Joshe This really doesn’t have much to do with Kyle personally. Kyle just happens to be providing an unusually clear case study in kafkatraps, double binds, and self-sealing arguments. It started when he made judgments about my own life. When I questioned those judgments, the response eventually became to disengage and suggest that other users disengage from me as well. That fascinated me. Whenever I end up in situations like this, my instinct is to understand what is actually happening. I’ve been through plenty of interpersonal conflicts, but I had never encountered an argument that felt so rhetorically strong while also feeling so disconnected from anything I could actually clarify, falsify, or resolve. At this point, if Kyle continues reframing what happened, I’ve documented enough of the exchange to keep the record clear. I’m not interested in attacking him personally. I also acknowledge that earlier in the conflict I said some unnecessary things, and I apologize to the community for that and have already been deliberately avoiding rhetoric like that. When the onus was placed on me, however, I am not sure. What interests me now is the structure of the arguments themselves. I have roughly a month’s worth of examples, and I’m considering making a separate thread dedicated specifically to these kinds of mental traps. That would not be an indictment of Kyle as a person. I’m not trying to establish that he is “good” or “bad.” The point is that these argumentative structures are apparent far beyond this one interaction and, in my view, fairly common in this community. A live example simply makes them easier to examine. The especially interesting part is how the structure can become self-sealing. If he keeps responding, the dispute continues and can be reframed again. If he stops responding, that can potentially be interpreted as him avoiding the issue or conceding it—which has been one of his accusations towards me, actually. Likewise, my own attempts to clarify can be reframed as further evidence that I am evading something. That is the phenomenon I’m interested in documenting: not Kyle himself, but the kind of argumentative loop in which nearly every possible response can be absorbed back into the original interpretation. It is fascinating.