My conjecture (though beware mind fallacy), is that it’s because you emphasize “naive deference” to others, which looks obviously wrong to me and obviously not what most people I know who suffer from this tend to do (but might be representative of the people you actually met).
Instead, the mental move that I know intimately is what I call “instrumentalization” (or to be more memey, “tyranny of whys”). It’s a move that doesn’t require another or a social context (though it often includes internalized social judgements from others, aka superego); it only requires caring deeply about a goal (the goal doesn’t actually matter that much), and being invested in it, somewhat neurotically.
I’m kinda confused by this. Glancing back at the dialogue, it looks like most of the dialogue emphasizes general “Urgent fake thinking”, related to backchaining and slaving everything to a goal; it mentions social context in passing; and then emphasizes deference in the paragraph starting “I don’t know.”.
But anyway, I strongly encourage you to write something that would communicate to past-Adam the thing that now seems valuable to you. :)
I agree that it is in the text. If it wasn’t clear, my message was trying to reverse engineer why I bounced off, which is more about my experience of reading than fully about the text.
I’m kinda confused by this. Glancing back at the dialogue, it looks like most of the dialogue emphasizes general “Urgent fake thinking”, related to backchaining and slaving everything to a goal; it mentions social context in passing; and then emphasizes deference in the paragraph starting “I don’t know.”.
But anyway, I strongly encourage you to write something that would communicate to past-Adam the thing that now seems valuable to you. :)
I agree that it is in the text. If it wasn’t clear, my message was trying to reverse engineer why I bounced off, which is more about my experience of reading than fully about the text.