How do 'anti-conceptuals' get through the day?

[Mister A]

I read the entry for the anti-conceptual mentality on the Lexicon. While I certainly see this attitude in politics and philosophy, I'm having trouble grasping how a human being can survive, even thrive and multiply, when he has shut down the faculties required for his own survival. These people seem to be able to socialize, get accepted to and attend college, hold jobs of various levels, get married, sire children; common achievements of a modern existence that I would expect to require a functioning mind.

Do they somehow get by solely via peer mimicry and tribalism while being in perpetual terror of the inconceivable?

[themadkat]

Do they somehow get by solely via peer mimicry and tribalism while being in perpetual terror of the inconceivable?

Yes. They also make it a point to never, never take ideas seriously.

[whYNOT]

Yes, this is a puzzle; how does anyone operating at a fraction of their mental capability, with hardly one original thought, and living a copy-cat existence, not only survive, but thrive.

These are beings who do derive full satisfaction, validation, and belongingness from others, seemingly. It's obvious that they are cheating reality, and their own existence.

But still.

It appears that life is very forgiving - up to a point. When one can make large amounts of money, as many do, with just energy and a modicum of logic ; when one can be well liked and respected by being socially charming and compromising - well, I suppose such a person would say : Why should I change?

Within the range of their narrow focus, they achieve a vague 'happiness'. Between superstition and tribalism, they feel safe and 'meaningful'.

I do however believe that time will eventually cruelly expose and widen the cracks in their make-up.

[Howard Roark]

I have met a few people who apply this kind of mentality. Some of them can keep up to a certain point within the limits of a group of the same kind, but they fear outsiders. This is why they need to attach themselves to some gang, because they are constantly seeking protection. Another thing is that they usually accept some philosophy in abstract terms, but their actions have no relation with what they’re saying. That is how they get through the day, because it is practically impossible to apply their thinking to real cases. They don’t look beyond the immediate moment. Of course, the consequences of not being consistent will show up when it comes to happiness, i.e., a state of non-contradictory joy.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Howard Roark

[L-C]

Mostly, they ride piggy back on the success of their betters.

[MichaelH]

I have been married to a MBTI ESFP* for 16 years, so I've observed an anti-conceptual mentality up close for quite some time.

Anti-conceptuals like my husband function on an emotional level. They perceive people's feelings automatically, rather than inferring them consciously from behavior. This makes them naturally very good at social interaction, and jobs that require social interaction. My husband can chat with essentially anyone, at any time, for any reason, and get them to enjoy talking to him. I've seen it happen; it's eerie.

He is very good at fixing concrete things. He once rebuilt the wiring in a car completely from bumper to bumper, following the wiring diagram. Because of his experience with engines, he is very good at improvising fixes. He seems to have an extensive mental checklist of "if A is wrong, check X or Y or Z". Once he hits the end of his checklist, he has to look on-line to get more concretes.

He tends to bring up irrelevancies and get flustered when asked to define their positions carefully. When a Tesla motors electric car stomped a Porsche in drag races, and the article described it as "faster than a Porsche", he had a fit. "It's not faster than a Porsche. It's quicker than a Porsche." He couldn't elaborate any further than that; his brain had short-circuited for a while. (I think he was trying to say "quicker off the line", but I doubt he knew the top speed of the Tesla.) When he is unhappy about my drivining, he'll say I should stop switching off the cruise control because "the switch will wear out".

He is absolutely helpless when it comes to math. He tries, but algebra is not worth the effort required to make his brain work that way. He has an amazing (savant?) ability with money, to compute interest and percentages, probably because he can work with money physically.

As for life achievement, anti-conceptuals can go very far in fields that use their strengths. Sales doesn't require a deep conceptual analysis. Neither does politics. (Running for office and running the government require very different skill sets). Anything at a perceptual level: auto repair, simple construction, welding, chef-ing, are all good fits. These fields have skills that are developed over time just like for conceptual jobs.

Being anti-conceptual does come with a whole raft of problems. I want to point out that anti-conceptuals can still succeed and make contributions to society. Just don't ask them to plan ahead.

* If you're unfamiliar with the MBTI, google "ESFP" and it will give you a detailed personality profile of my husband's type.

[rebelconservative]

I read the entry for the anti-conceptual mentality on the Lexicon. While I certainly see this attitude in politics and philosophy, I'm having trouble grasping how a human being can survive, even thrive and multiply, when he has shut down the faculties required for his own survival. These people seem to be able to socialize, get accepted to and attend college, hold jobs of various levels, get married, sire children; common achievements of a modern existence that I would expect to require a functioning mind.

Do they somehow get by solely via peer mimicry and tribalism while being in perpetual terror of the inconceivable?

I've just started reading the Virtue of Selfishness, so I am no expert, this is just my personal reflections on what I have read. in the Objectivist Ethics Ayn Rand discusses the necessity of thinking for our survival (you can read it for yourself here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...ctivist_ethics)

here is what I got from it -

higher animals perceive reality to a certain extent, learning certain tasks which they perform automatically (hunting, hiding etc) i.e. that is a rabbit >> kill and eat the rabbit. There is no thought process, it is an automatic response.

but Man has conciousness, we do not react automatically, there is a thought process, we need to develop concepts to survive - to make fire, build shelter etc. However, some people refuse to think, these people, the ones you are talking about, have sunk to a subhuman status because they refuse to use/acknoweldge their consciousness and do act, almost, automatically and without thought.

I guess they get by on a combination of peer mimicry, tradition and rote learning. they do not question their existence, but they have the intelligence to be able to use machinery; they don't ask why, but they are able to sell shoes or manage other people who sell shoes. do lions need to use thought to catch antelopes? they don't. it is automatic. see it, hide, get close, pounce, chase, kill, eat, sleep. even more complex social arrangements are exhibited in the animal kingdom and they are also automatic, animals often attack in packs, surrounding their prey. when you consider that this level of 'cooperation' exists in the animal world, it is not difficult to see how it works in the human world, even those who do not think have a much higher level of intelligence. I guess it is a matter of learned behaviour, the process of socialisation into a group makes certain behaviours automatic, e.g. going to watch a sporting event one might shout, cheer, swear, jump up and down, behaviours one would not be expected to exhibit in a theatre. you do not think about it, you just do it, it is automatic.

perhaps this a good analogy: I have no real concept of how my laptop works, how my internal modem sends information to the wireless router etc until the information ultimately ending up at your house - but I am skilled at using computers because the people at Microsoft have developed an operating system that is relatively easy to operate.

just my 2 cents...

[whYNOT]

"2 cents"? No,worth a couple of dollars, methinks.

[Mister A]

I've just started reading the Virtue of Selfishness, so I am no expert, this is just my personal reflections on what I have read. in the Objectivist Ethics Ayn Rand discusses the necessity of thinking for our survival (you can read it for yourself here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...ctivist_ethics)

here is what I got from it -

higher animals perceive reality to a certain extent, learning certain tasks which they perform automatically (hunting, hiding etc) i.e. that is a rabbit >> kill and eat the rabbit. There is no thought process, it is an automatic response.

but Man has conciousness, we do not react automatically, there is a thought process, we need to develop concepts to survive - to make fire, build shelter etc. However, some people refuse to think, these people, the ones you are talking about, have sunk to a subhuman status because they refuse to use/acknoweldge their consciousness and do act, almost, automatically and without thought.

I guess they get by on a combination of peer mimicry, tradition and rote learning. they do not question their existence, but they have the intelligence to be able to use machinery; they don't ask why, but they are able to sell shoes or manage other people who sell shoes. do lions need to use thought to catch antelopes? they don't. it is automatic. see it, hide, get close, pounce, chase, kill, eat, sleep. even more complex social arrangements are exhibited in the animal kingdom and they are also automatic, animals often attack in packs, surrounding their prey. when you consider that this level of 'cooperation' exists in the animal world, it is not difficult to see how it works in the human world, even those who do not think have a much higher level of intelligence. I guess it is a matter of learned behaviour, the process of socialisation into a group makes certain behaviours automatic, e.g. going to watch a sporting event one might shout, cheer, swear, jump up and down, behaviours one would not be expected to exhibit in a theatre. you do not think about it, you just do it, it is automatic.

perhaps this a good analogy: I have no real concept of how my laptop works, how my internal modem sends information to the wireless router etc until the information ultimately ending up at your house - but I am skilled at using computers because the people at Microsoft have developed an operating system that is relatively easy to operate.

just my 2 cents...

That doesn't explain the terror and counter-aggression they exhibit when intellectually challenged. I guess it's a similar experience to being tossed into a pool without knowing how to swim.

[Axiomatic]

My Father fits this mould very well. In fact he is an anti-conceptual altruistic mystic pragmatist, if that makes any sense.

[rebelconservative]

"2 cents"? No,worth a couple of dollars, methinks.

inflation must be bad these days we need a gold standard...

That doesn't explain the terror and counter-aggression they exhibit when intellectually challenged. I guess it's a similar experience to being tossed into a pool without knowing how to swim.

true, and I agree with your analogy.

I guess partly that they don't want to think, it is too difficult/hard work and they resent you for trying to make them think or because they feel bad about their own ignorance. and partly it is cognitive dissonance, they are probably struggling to combine two contradictory thoughts without the tools analyse either.

[Pickax]

Several anti-conceptuals I've dealt with have been diagnosed with clinical depression. Others show many of the signs of it. Some even dabble in using reason, but the ones who do tend to experience such extreme cognitive dissonance that it drives them to depression. Anti-conceptuals who don't attempt to be reasonable usually get through the day a little more easily.

With the type of great minds that are around and have so heavily influenced the life we live today, I think it's easy for an anti-conceptual to get through the day. Even in a "bad" economy, there are still many jobs which the vast majority of people can work. All they need is a little money and they can easily just go to the grocery store and pay rent in an apartment that is taken care of by a landlord and maintenance crew.

Getting married just requires finding someone willing to deal with them (my guess is it would often be another anti-conceptual). From there, having kids is easy.

Anti-conceptuals are not necessarily completely unintelligent. I think in modern society they can function fairly easily as far as making money and getting their needs met. The primary thing they miss is that they rarely produce anything original and they tend to face a high likelihood of depression. This is definitely not to say that everyone who has depression is anti-conceptual or that all anti-conceptuals show signs of depression. It's just a trend I've noticed and it stands to reason.

As far as where the fear comes from, I had trouble understanding that. What I come up with is that fear of the unknown comes up whether a person recognizes it or not. Ultimately, the anti-conceptual fails to understand what happens in the world and why. Even if they try to ignore that, the fear it creates in a person is hard to ignore.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Pickax

[Mister A]

My Father fits this mould very well. In fact he is an anti-conceptual altruistic mystic pragmatist, if that makes any sense.

Someone who does not think, has no sense of self, believes seeking knowledge is a futile endeavor and that getting a desirable result is more important than following any standard or consistency. Close enough?

[Hodges'sPodges]

"The anti-conceptual mentality stops on this level of development—on the first levels of abstractions, which identify perceptual material consisting predominantly of physical objects—and does not choose to take the next, crucial, fully volitional step: the higher levels of abstraction from abstractions, which cannot be learned by imitation. - Ayn Rand

For inferring what people choose mentally, I suppose we must look to their behavior, since we don't have a capability of reading minds.

I don't think I've met anyone whose behavior is evidence that they have CHOSEN not to consider all abstractions beyond those regarding physical objects. And aside from the matter of choosing, I don't think I've met anyone (other than possibly those with abnormal disorders or severe low intelligence) whose behavior gave evidence that they really have not developed any abstractions other than those about physical objects.

Of course, there are people who I can surmise are, in various degrees, hostile to what they think is too much abstractness.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Hodges'sPodges

[Axiomatic]

Someone who does not think, has no sense of self, believes seeking knowledge is a futile endeavor and that getting a desirable result is more important than following any standard or consistency. Close enough?

Spot on!