I want to try to take a shot at teasing this out cogently, and let’s see how hard I miss:
The scientist I worked for was brilliant in that, if he said a thing, it was to crush something, or find out how crush something. Seemed like his whole personality. He could do it at any level and seemed to do it with the same distaste at every opportunity. Spirits, bad theories, the time schedules of undergrads, raised head of imperfect colleagues — the man was a crusher. Dr. Crusher, they should’ve called him. I don’t think he really enjoyed it all in the end too.
And I took some of his classes (after he singled me out in a lab huddle and went “Why aren’t you enrolled in my classes, Eric.”) where he also proved he was a brilliant teacher; for it was his job to teach and your job to listen and learn.
He said a thing that today me would actually accuse of being not scientific, but still scientific enough to be worth his teaching:
“Animals don’t think about why they’re doing things. They do it because it feels better than not doing it, or because an instinct or reflex made them.” That’s a paraphrase, but he went on to deride all those ninnies out their who think their cute fluffy kitten loves them and wants what’s best for them, vs meowing because that shit gets food and food feels good.
(The man was also a dedicated cat owner.)
And I think he positioned the behaviorist point of view not as a point of view or framework, but as certain truth. But that’s really a belief. It’s a theory, and it’s not a hypothesis because how are you going to test for that. Essentially, does my ghost pepper have conscientiousness? My guppy? How about my cat? Me?
And I don’t want to lose the plot, because I can see why this man would need to hold belief as certainty on this one. That lab had its animal research, and it was a viable viewpoint. But screw this I’ve seen my cat demonstrate a theory of mind enough, and I also think there’s plenty of evidence to say that the quality of sapience is not a human superpower. I don’t think mosquitoes or your mom necessarily has it — but it’s definitely not limited just to people.
Now an amazing thing is, animals that communicate have to hold it in their head what they want to communicate, and get it into the other head. For that to happen, they have to have the express idea that an idea exists in their head and not the other, and that they want to get it there. Then a beautious thing is, they need to figure out how to codify that idea and make it so your brain can gnom gnom.
That implies something special: the ability to think simultaneously as a container with an idea, and as the container without that idea. Not simple subtraction.
Without going into why sophisticated chatbots are intimidating, this is exactly why sophisticated chatbots are intimidating.
And I also think this is why people who can actually have deep engagements and deep conversations resonate with an intelligence that doesn’t need to be charted or measured. Their container can certainly hold and perform a lot. Being able to talk to people implies a capable commonhood. It’s one reason finding the same shit funny can be like magic.
There’s one more place I want to take this — no one thinks humans ARE these perfectly intentional souls, right? That people are NPCs? Good. Because coexisting within and around that animal coding barely, might be the healthiest way to think about it. That’s how your big dumb smart brain looks around your little sexy lizard brain.
I think some people, at any level in life, have an especially hard time acting outside of their coded ways of personality. Hey I’ve got strong impulses myself. And I also think that any conversation about people who might have toughly coded ways of being is going to warrant a fun distinction between evolved vs high-functioning. They’re not mutually exclusive, but some people can be to their own disadvantage in certain ways, and still adapted enough to the world that they’ll survive — just maybe not thrive as much. And maybe they’ll still do super. If so great, cause high functioning.
Evolved folks meanwhile have learned to leverage or advantageously work around their code to actual advantage. More of a “how well do you play life with the hand you’re dealt” then a “how much does your hand win the game of life”
And some things are unfortunately heavy lifts to go into this evolved concept about (and I don’t wanna).
But what I’ve been overthinking is how a good goal in identifying your own differences is to feed self-awareness. The whole point of that would be so you can also be more conscientious about your bullshit. Maybe make decisions that’s outside of your ordinary code. And that whole ability to communicate with others, or talk to yourself and go “listen this impulse may be driven by but you can choose to ___ and in the long run it’s better because ____” I’d say that there’s a super power.