on a tangent to the tangent, the NPD-leader BPD-follower model reminded me (even in one or two details) of Bob Altemeyer's studies of "authoritarian followers".
EDIT: regarding Dreyfus & Dreyfus, it's interesting to think of expertise in terms of Minsky's Society of Mind: what if there's just as much deliberative choice going on for the expert, but it's no longer perceived at a conscious level? [go far enough along these lines of course, and you arrive at Jayne's ... Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (1976), which is probably a bit too far]
By deliberative, do you mean something more sophisticated than “deterministic” ( to mean, e.g., that regarding a process that integrates internal & external inputs in a way that cannot be Kolmogorov-decompressed :)?
More concretely, can a coach note the differences — why world champions need coaches, not necessarily coaches who were themselves world champions.
>[haha]
mjburgess thread commenter came back with anxiety-depression axis, which seems personally more salient, as I seem to wander into latent conflicts with depressives who seem depressed at the same level that i am anxious (in a particular situation).
That said, any pointers from Altemeyer I should watch out for before I go into a deepdive mapping the NB axis to the DA axis?
(Tangential edit:
inherent vice is imho the most autobiographical (as Sortilège?) of Pynchon, you might enjoy the soundtrack from the adaptation as well, esp. the rewilding of Can
Yes, by deliberative I was taking seriously the notion (from Society of Mind and Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat) that our qualia of consciousness may be a quasifictional single-threaded experience which we tell ourselves to explain actions which we've actually arrived at in a far less totally-ordered manner.
On coaching and anxiety as overthinking the future: a big part of dealing with horses is to notice when they're overthinking [the danger in] a situation, and focus their concentration upon activity in the here-and-now, one after the other*, but staying with what needs to be done and not leaving space for anxiety about what might happen. This is difficult for them at first, but gets easier and easier with practice. (one of the aims of both european and "western" training is to get a horse to a point where it can go into the equine equivalent of an on guard position, ready for any movement, not because it is excited but because it is relaxed)
[I certainly couldn't arrange all the muscle firings for four legs and a neck to carry both myself and a rider through even a halfway complicated movement, but acting as coach I can help a horse to improve how they do so.]
I've also used this focus on myself: one of the better moments of my fencing career was a bout in which I was down 0-9, and said to myself "I'm obviously choking here; time to change something", and so by concentrating solely on winning precisely each current point ("no past no future") eventually won 15-12.
* compare https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memorand... which argues that if you have a small mind coping with a wide world, a next-state automaton is both necessary and (insofar as it's the best you can do given the size mismatch) sufficient.
EDIT: regarding Dreyfus & Dreyfus, it's interesting to think of expertise in terms of Minsky's Society of Mind: what if there's just as much deliberative choice going on for the expert, but it's no longer perceived at a conscious level? [go far enough along these lines of course, and you arrive at Jayne's ... Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (1976), which is probably a bit too far]