I agree that quality of life is horrible with these adaptations, and social rewards don’t counter that enough to offset it. Maybe “reward” is the wrong word for describing how I think it works. Some hegemonic societal structures contain messaging that significantly reinforces shame, distorted self- and world-concepts, and perceptions of threat. This incentivizes not letting go of pathological adaptations. Sometimes, in the case of communities that actively value exploitation, domination, or dehumanization, this involves the idea that letting go of certain mindsets or practices would be disloyal to an in-group. I agree with the point that this conditioning still does not improve people’s crappy quality of life, and that people who have these pathological adaptations often cannot perceive or internalize what they’re missing out on. I agree that content which positively models the alternative can help some people. I do think some recent popular shows do this well. I’m a big fan of shows that do this! (leans cartoons like owl house cuz I’m a geek tho)
I’m still working out how to best define it, but here’s one potential way of defining it:
Moralizers are people interested in framing goals and rewards in ways they believe will maximize benefit for both their in-group and out-groups. This isn’t necessarily compassionate, just, or liberatory. Fundamentalist Christians, for example, believe they’re doing this while pushing conversion therapy on LGBT people. This process of maximization tends to come with an interest in optimizing toward generalized ideals. It often looks like creating systems and policies for high standards of performance towards what they consider ideal for society and a greater good. Despite the name, this doesn’t have to involve a moralistic, legalistic presentation. Someone can be opposed to puritanical, black-and-white, harsh application of rules while still being interested in continual, principled, proactive evaluation of how they and others should behave optimally.
Stabilizers are people interested in what they believe will balance loss for both their in-group and out-groups. Compared to the other styles, there’s a greater focus on comfort, harmony in an environment, and not framing judgments or actions as proactively antagonistic. The manifestations of this can range widely. One example is exploitation of others fueled by apathetic justifications that pay lip service to notions of what they need to feel comfortable. Another, more idealized representation would be balanced, skillful diplomacy that facilitates peace and releases long-held tensions between two groups.
Challengers are people interested in what they believe will maximize gain for their in-group, including cases where an out-group’s losing resources benefits their in-group. They’re interested in winning. This is likely the style most correlated with psychopathy and narcissism, but it doesn’t necessarily have to manifest stereotypically that way. In healthier examples, this is often just a blunter style of describing problems. One interested in being a realist and boldly confronting people about whether situations will lead to desired outcomes.
I think a useful way to conceptualize this is that someone has a personal primary style and a secondary style, which is then further shaped by an externalized “ideal other” they value collaborating with to create social norms. These additional variables would shift the general behavioral presentation a lot. How this manifests will also often be secondary to the particular values and models someone holds, and to what their community enforces.
What someone “is,” to me, is their artificially neutral and isolated stress-response style. I suspect this would also likely line up with their autonomous, empowered, preferred way of framing problems. I would hope this could be useful for identifying comfortable collaborators and understanding conflicts in framing a problem with people with similar values otherwise. It may also help with tailoring responses to disagreements. However, people’s actual behavior and situationally expressed preferences can be more shaped by external pressures. Even so, this way of framing people can still be useful for identifying the structure of someone’s beliefs, even if their deeper personality structure isn’t perceivable.
I agree that quality of life is horrible with these adaptations, and social rewards don’t counter that enough to offset it. Maybe “reward” is the wrong word for describing how I think it works. Some hegemonic societal structures contain messaging that significantly reinforces shame, distorted self- and world-concepts, and perceptions of threat. This incentivizes not letting go of pathological adaptations. Sometimes, in the case of communities that actively value exploitation, domination, or dehumanization, this involves the idea that letting go of certain mindsets or practices would be disloyal to an in-group. I agree with the point that this conditioning still does not improve people’s crappy quality of life, and that people who have these pathological adaptations often cannot perceive or internalize what they’re missing out on. I agree that content which positively models the alternative can help some people. I do think some recent popular shows do this well. I’m a big fan of shows that do this! (leans cartoons like owl house cuz I’m a geek tho)
I’m still working out how to best define it, but here’s one potential way of defining it:
Moralizers are people interested in framing goals and rewards in ways they believe will maximize benefit for both their in-group and out-groups. This isn’t necessarily compassionate, just, or liberatory. Fundamentalist Christians, for example, believe they’re doing this while pushing conversion therapy on LGBT people. This process of maximization tends to come with an interest in optimizing toward generalized ideals. It often looks like creating systems and policies for high standards of performance towards what they consider ideal for society and a greater good. Despite the name, this doesn’t have to involve a moralistic, legalistic presentation. Someone can be opposed to puritanical, black-and-white, harsh application of rules while still being interested in continual, principled, proactive evaluation of how they and others should behave optimally.
Stabilizers are people interested in what they believe will balance loss for both their in-group and out-groups. Compared to the other styles, there’s a greater focus on comfort, harmony in an environment, and not framing judgments or actions as proactively antagonistic. The manifestations of this can range widely. One example is exploitation of others fueled by apathetic justifications that pay lip service to notions of what they need to feel comfortable. Another, more idealized representation would be balanced, skillful diplomacy that facilitates peace and releases long-held tensions between two groups.
Challengers are people interested in what they believe will maximize gain for their in-group, including cases where an out-group’s losing resources benefits their in-group. They’re interested in winning. This is likely the style most correlated with psychopathy and narcissism, but it doesn’t necessarily have to manifest stereotypically that way. In healthier examples, this is often just a blunter style of describing problems. One interested in being a realist and boldly confronting people about whether situations will lead to desired outcomes.
I think a useful way to conceptualize this is that someone has a personal primary style and a secondary style, which is then further shaped by an externalized “ideal other” they value collaborating with to create social norms. These additional variables would shift the general behavioral presentation a lot. How this manifests will also often be secondary to the particular values and models someone holds, and to what their community enforces.
What someone “is,” to me, is their artificially neutral and isolated stress-response style. I suspect this would also likely line up with their autonomous, empowered, preferred way of framing problems. I would hope this could be useful for identifying comfortable collaborators and understanding conflicts in framing a problem with people with similar values otherwise. It may also help with tailoring responses to disagreements. However, people’s actual behavior and situationally expressed preferences can be more shaped by external pressures. Even so, this way of framing people can still be useful for identifying the structure of someone’s beliefs, even if their deeper personality structure isn’t perceivable.