Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
O.k., the following is a 2-month synopsis of what I've been talking to Joe about. The majority is psychology. The impetus for this is a continuation of the RotP (Romance of the Programmer)/DotM (Dichotomy of the Mind) I've previous talked about. Here is the first bit:

Theory:

The IES Dichotomy/Need Hierarchy/Rationalization Paradigm

IES Dichotomy

At the top, the core idea is the Id/Ego/Super-ego dichotomy. The id reflects physiological/basic human needs (these needs are mostly developed from epochs of evolution), the super-ego reflects that rational side, that discusses theories and creates long-term goals, and the ego acts as mediator between the opposing desires of the id and super-ego.

Need hierarchy

Then directly under this idea are the motivations for the id. The motivations for the id are explained in a hierarchy of needs (I hesitate saying Maslow now, because, what if the hierarchy is different? I'm questioning how we know that it's a 'hierarchy', is this from experience?). Every thing that the id is trying to do is to satisfy some specific need that is derived from an evolutionary drive. To help organize these desires for our conceptualization, we fit them in a hierarchy that also matches the relevant need for these desires.

Rationalization

Rationalization takes place when a desire of the id and super-ego conflict. The ego then measures the needs of the id, and the reasoning and backing of the super-ego's desires, and then comes to a conclusion with regards to which desire to accept.

Consequences of the Paradigm

Procrastination

Procrastination is a result of the id's desire for esteem. The super-ego creates a goal, which, due to other factors or previous experience, when brought to rationalization, the ego concludes that the action would in the end result in success/failure. Then, depending on the esteem needs of the id, the ego decides to not participate in the action because the success/failure would harm esteem (or in the case of success, would harm something else).

Addictions

Addictions are the result of satisfying the id's social need, or in the case of the contextual model, some other sort of need. Again, in the rationalization process, this information comes to the ego, and if the super-ego does not have a strong enough case/the desire of the id is strong enough, the ego takes actions to satisfy the addiction as a way of satisfying the id's needs.

Applications

These fall in two distinct categories and address the problems above by coming at them from two different angles.

Augmentive Actions: Addressing the Id's Desires

When we come across an action of the id's that our reasoning/super-ego side does not want, we find better ways to satisfy this desire. Ways to satisfy the desire as it appears in the Need Hierarchy, only doing this in an efficient that also benefits us and is consistent with our goals. Or at least, performing an action that is a lesser-evil to what would originally happen. A lot of times, this augmentive action will NOT be immediately useful. Instead, it must be practiced over time, so its ability as an option to satisfying a desire of the id is more natural.

For example, the whole 'mirror'/'Stewart Smiley'-thing is a way to satisfy my esteem needs. When I do this, then the ego is less likely to bring up procrastination as an action to reply to fear of failure.

The Rationalization Cycle: Strengthening the Super-ego's Case

When we come across an action of the id's that our reasoning/super-ego side does not want, we find ways to make the reasons that the super-ego provides against the actions even stronger and more appealing to the mediating ego. This is also something that needs practice, is NOT immediately useful, and goes through the following "Rationalization Cycle":

  • The super-ego provides a list of reasons to not partake in the addiction.
  • These reasons are repeated constantly until they can be remembered with ease. (this step takes some time)
  • The id raises the desire for the addiction. The rationalization process is enacted. The ego traces through the reasons that are easily remembered by the super-ego. If some are powerful reasons, more powerful than the id's, the ego will accept this and bow to the super-ego's desires. If no/not enough reasons are satisfactory, the ego bows to the id's desires.
  • If the addiction takes place, identify any possible counter-reasons for the reasons given by the super-ego. If not, identify the most powerful reasons.
  • The super-ego improves the list by removing weak reasoning and creating new and better reasons from the data in the previous step.
  • Go back to the top.

    For example, I have this list of addictions that I've identified. Say videogames. I provide an initial set of reasons: if I start I'll waste the whole day, at the end of the day I'm going to feel bad about myself. Last weekend the addiction came up again, and I fell prey to the addiction. After thinking about the interaction, the first reason, "If I start I'll waste the whole day" was actually a VERY weak reason. In fact, it served to strengthen the id's case (oh great! I get to play the whole day!). However, the second reason kept me from playing for at least an hour.

    So, I threw out "If I start I'll waste the day" from my list, and proceeded to strengthen the other reason or provide better ones. I came up with the following, I strengthened the other reason by saying, "There are other things I can do that provide a better sense of accomplishment" and "I don't get anything out of it, only an empty save file that will get deleted within a week anyways". These kept me away from it this Sunday, and I found to be pretty strong reasons for the super-ego's case.

    After this, I got a lot of criticism from Joe, so I was more rigorous with the concepts

    A is axiom or something I am taking for granted, D is a definition, T is a theorem. I prepend by a P if I can not guarantee universality. I prepend by E if I think there’s ample evidence.

    D1 The part of our mind that specifically logically chooses our goals is the ego.

    D2 The part of our mind that either decides contrary to the ego or makes decisions without prior thought is the id.

    EA1 We think.

    EA2 We breath without consciously thinking about it.

    T1 A1, therefore the ego (D1) exists.

    T2 A2, therefore the id (D2) exists.

    EA3 The number of tasks in any given time we can perform is physically limited.

    D3 The part of our mind that chooses between the id and ego’s decisions is called the superego.

    EA4 Our minds decide what actions we take.

    A5 The id has basic needs and tries to address these.

    T3 We make goals because the ego exists (T1)

    T4 Because the number of tasks we can perform is limited (A3), and because both the id/ego make choices (T3/A5) there must be some decision to be made between which irrational and which rational tasks are performed. Since our minds determine what actions we take (A4), there must be some part of our mind that chooses between irrational and rational acts. Therefore, the superego (D3) exists.

    D4 We call the process in which the superego decides between what actions the ego takes or the id takes to be ‘rationalization’.

    T5 Rationalization occurs otherwise the superego wouldn’t exist (T4)

    D5 Where-in rationalization (note that this makes sense by T5) of the id in actions that are not immediately life-threatening over that of the ego for a prolonged period of time, we call this procrastination.

    D6 Where-in rationalization (note that this makes sense by T5) of the id in actions that are not immediately life-threatening over that of the ego are chosen repetitively, we call this addiction.

    EPA6 Addictions and procrastination exist

    A7 If addictions (D6) or procrastination (D7) exist, then there are needs of the id that do not need to be met to continue living and thus the id is not meeting needs efficiently.

    T6 A6 and A7 and modus ponens imply that the id is not meeting needs efficiently and there are needs that do not need to be met to continue living.

    D7 Augmentive actions are actions that address the needs of the id more efficiently.

    T7 Because the actions of the id are not met efficiently (T6), the ego can act in a way to meet these actions more efficiently. Therefore, augmentive actions exist.

    EA8 - We perform actions that are the decision of the ego (T1/A1)

    A9 - Rationalization is not random (makes sense by T5)

    T8 The superego (D3/T4) by definition chooses either the action of the ego (T1/A1) or the action of the id (T2/A2). The only backing behind the ego’s decision is rationality (D1), and the only backing behind the id’s decision is its desires (A5). Therefore, since the superego does not act randomly (A9), then it must receive its input from something, of which there are two available inputs: the logic of the ego or desires of the id. If it only used one of the two, then by T5, EA2, and EA8, we have a contradiction. Therefore, the superego chooses because of the reasons of the ego and desires of the id. Since EA8 occurs, this implies that the reasons of the ego can supersede the desires of the id.

    D8 The process of creating reasons that supersede the id’s desires is called the ‘rationalization cycle’.

    Finally, I ended it with a bunch of questions.

    EPISTEMOLOGY

    What the crap does Godel's Incompleteness Theorem really mean? I hear a lot of crap from logicians about the Wikipedia article.
    At the moment I'm VERY comfortable with the following framework:
    - Evidence for axioms ALL for it (none against), no evidence against it.
    - Normal logic from those axioms.

    MORALITY

    At the moment I'm heavily invested into natural rights, but mainly because of some intellectual bankruptcy. I don't want to go through reading Kant/Aristotle/etc.. But Joe, I would like to hear your expositions on these when you get to them :U.

    PSYCHOLOGY

    I REALLY like the formal thing I wrote up. It's just of summary of what I previously wrote minus the evolutionary stuff, I think it clears up a lot of the things you brought up, and it makes it really clear what I'm assuming.

    My remaining questions are based around the following:

    A5 The id has basic needs and tries to address these.

    A7 If addictions (D6) or procrastination (D7) exist, then there are needs of the id that do not need to be met to continue living and thus the id is not meeting needs efficiently.

    A9 - Rationalization is not random (makes sense by T5)

    Notice that each of these are not prepended with an 'E'. Basically meaning there's more work to be done here. My remaining questions in psychology, therefore, revolve around these three assumptions:

    Questions that may resolve A5:

    How do we really know what the basic needs of the id are? How do we know the id isn't random?
    How precise is Maslow's Hierarchy? Is it correct at all.
    What patterns do the desires of the id have? Can we resolve these patterns into any useful theories about how desires of the id arise, and use this for proper application?

    Questions that may resolve A9:

    How does rationalization work?
    What is the criteria (if there is one), that chooses and irrational desire over a rational goal?

    Intuition:

    I think that getting A5 in more solid ground might involve the whole social dynamics you're looking at. I feel like resolving the foundation of A5 will give insight into A7.
    Resolving A7 will likely lead to better techniques for augmentive actions.
    Resolving A9 might lead to a better explanation of a rationalization cycle. I.e., utilizing information about how rationalization is done to 'cheat the system' and squeeze rational goals through. Maybe like how Congress breaks the legislative system by ramming 10k page bills in a couple of hours. If we have some good techniques for augmentive actions and other techniques based on the rationalization cycle, then we are SET. They'll hopefully resolve addictions/procrastination.

    That's about it!