The Filtering Traits  

Offered by David Apollo

Preface

We start each Personality Spectrum Filter discussion by reminding the reader again what ConserveLiberty means by a Personality Filter. ← Click there.

And, as usual, now that the declaration that "our personality filters have an organic, genetic basis" is out of the way ... we continue to remind that ...

The biological and genetic basis underlying human personality is expected to be quite complex, with many component parts. By no means should it be construed or implied that the Compatibility-Seeking Phenotype Spectrum is the result of a single gene. Rather, an ensemble of biological parts are necessary to be expressed and put together just right so that a person's individual place on the Compatibility-Seeking Spectrum is determined.

---

Introduction

"The world's oldest profession, contrary to popular belief, is not prostitution. It is Marketing." - David Apollo

And we can add to that declaration:

"... which is dependent upon trust building ... which is dependent upon friendship and a sense of "with-ness" ... which is dependent upon Indoctrination ... which is dependent upon Compatibility-Seeking."

Let's take a dive into the Compatibility-Seeking Personality Spectrum Filter.

Page Index:     Preface     Introduction     Description of Impact     Synergies and Interactions     An Example of Interfering Filters     A Discussion of Friendship and Belonging

The Compatibility-Seeking Spectrum Filter is one of among a collection of learning-related traits or filters that enable us to perform cooperatively as a "social" species. When dialed up sufficiently, our instinct or urge is to "fit in", to be "agreeable", to lessen conflict or discomfort. Thus, compatibility seeking can lead to greater cooperativity between people. (It should be noted that a solitary arrangement can also result in a "compatible" outcome.)

When people are involved, greater cooperativity can lead to a more positive, and even a more survival-selective result. However, the instinct for compatibility-seeking often can (and is) exploited by others seeking to manipulate our preferences and choices without our full knowledge or appreciation of the intent. Many commonly regard this type of activity as "Indoctrination", and consider it with a negative connotation. Yet, "Indoctrination" can also lead to positive outcomes, and when they do we often use a different word for it, such as "Training." However, whether the outcomes are positive or negative, this section will refer to preference, habit, and outlook changes as a result of any environmental (e.g. nature, event, person, new information, etc.,) exposure as "Indoctrination." For this reason, the reader is asked to suspend his or her negative view of the term.

Indoctrination has been described or defined as - "the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned." - Wikipedia, Dec 2014.

Summing up, compatibility-seeking often can result in cooperation-oriented changes (usually slight) to preferences, habits, and outlooks, and we refer to these changes generically as indoctrination.

If I were to choose an alternate term, I might instead refer to the Compatibility-Seeking Filter either as the Assimilation or Socialization or Cultural Adoption Filter, as this personality trait actively seeks to adopt an identity narrative coincident with a need to "fit in."

For our purposes, the Compatibility-Seeking Filter is that personality feature or trait that renders us competent to be socially cooperative, marketed to, part of a team, specially trained, indoctrinated. Arbitrarily (as we do not understand the actual biology concerned) we will use the convention that a high Compatibility-Seeking Spectrum Setting renders one more easily socialized or indoctrinated than a low one. Whether or not that accurately reflects the biology of the mechanism of cooperation and socialization is not known at this time.

Apparently, most of us are drawn to "fitting in" with those around us. For whatever reason, the approval of others, especially those most important to us, is a strong draw, and hard to resist. The greater the Spectrum Setting on the Compatibility-Seeking Filter, the stronger the urge, or the easier the choice, to mold our behaviors such that those important to us approve of us.

"Those" which are most important to us may not necessarily be "people," though they most often are. As we mature, various ideologies or world views or personal narratives are learned and embraced. These can be the result of both environmental influences and other genetic personality predispositions. These "outlooks" that we feel compelled to identify with take on a life of their own and become included in the "those-which-are-most-important-to-us."

Since these views are accumulated over time based on experience, it is the relatively inexperienced who are the most malleable with regard to the compatibility-driven or indoctrinating influence of other people and cultures. Naturally then, while all are responsive and adoptive to indoctrinating influence, youth tend to be more so than seniors.

On the other hand, when a particular narrative is compelling, individuals of all ages are easily influenced when in the presence of others who are able to articulate the narrative effectively.

For the purpose of clarity, it bears repeating that while the term "indoctrination" tends to have negative connotations in general conversation, it is not being used in that way in this chapter. Rather, competence to be indoctrinated (culturally influenced) is a very, very important behavioral feature of many, if not all species. And, since humans are social animals, whose very survival usually depends upon cooperation with others, personality mechanisms for "fitting in" are generally required for survival.

For a similar description of the term "Socialization", which is not usually associated with negative connotations, see Wikipedia, Dec 2014.

---

Description of Impact

As is often the case, we will use extremes to define our personality filters. Since people exist along a spectrum with regard to the expression of these filters, it will be rare to find someone who fits all descriptions of the extreme case. And, other filters may be present and expressed sufficiently that they may mask or enhance a filter that is being only partially expressed. Agreeing that we will not over-generalize the extent of a filter when suspected to be significantly present, let's define the Compatibility-Seeking Personality Spectrum Filter in terms of what we might see when it is dialed up to 80% or so in an individual.

We would see in an 80% (approx) dialed up individual (strong Compatibility-Seeking Personality Filter) the following tendencies:

• strong tendency to join cliques, gangs, social organizations.
  
  
• demonstrates pride in ethnic, national, regional, and group identities (e.g. school or team pride, etc.)
  
  
• embraces popularly held group views without regard for "why" they are embraced. The individual may be able to articulate an explanation for why the views are embraced, but these simply rationalize the embrace. Equally valid alternate views or affinities are not considered.
  
  
• comfortable with the self identification with the popularly held view.
  
  
• dismissal of opposing views, orientations, opinions, or "reason"-able alternative hypothesis or conclusions.
  
  
• agitation with, suspicion of, or demonization of resources that challenge the indoctrinated paradigm.
  
  
• compromise or suspension of ordinarily present "careful observation and reasoning" discipline in order to avoid conflict dissonance between indoctrinated views and evidence which challenges them.

It is here that, depending on the expressing filter sets, there might be confusion with our readership here. Many reject the notion that they may have allowed their preferences and habits to be influenced simply as a result of compatibility seeking. They prefer instead to believe that their preferences, alliances, and worldviews are the result of personal examination and choice. They believe that their "decision" to embrace particular perspectives or conclusions has been made freely. And, to a certain degree, I am absolutely sure they are correct. Most of us do choose to believe the things we believe, and to perceive the world as we perceive it.

In addition, there surely are opinions, conclusions, interpretations, and even worldviews which are wholly fallacious, or worse, patently evil, that deserve little other than outright rejection among those who seek truth. And, there are outlooks that do better than others at maximizing our potential as harmonic members of the lineage of the living. Thus, not all dismissals or rejections of viewpoints, individuals, their groups, etc., are the result of an illegitimate alternative indoctrinations. (But, certainly some are!)

Importantly, however, we should consider WHY we chose to believe what we do. WHY we interpret what we see as we do? Do we generate those choices totally from within ourselves rationally and dispassionately? Or do we rely on resources external to ourselves to help us make choices that serve a comfortable self-interest? If we are honest, we surely know that the answer involves a combination of both.

When we do not have all the information necessary to make a decision or to form an opinion, we rely on external resources. We choose those resources based on trust. Trust either that by accepting the information as true:

• we will not be harmed or lied to, and/or
  
  
• we will find positive resonance (e.g. approval) with those people and narratives that play important roles in our lives.

→  Don't think so? Think about it courageously for a moment before continuing.  ←

For some, the influence of indoctrinating information is dialed up (or down) more than others:

• Those with a strong Compatibility-Seeking Filter embrace messages anytime they come from a trusted or important resource.
  
  
• For others, their Compatibility-Seeking Filter may be firing, but other Filter instincts are also present that may be interfering.
  
  
• For still others, they may in many moments genuinely not be influenced by Socializing messages in the sense defined above, even though under other circumstances they might enthusiastically embrace them.
  
  
• Finally, for still others, their compatibility seeking spectrum setting is low enough that they cannot truly be influenced by a compelling desire to "fit in" or "be accepted." Even though, in their activities of preference choosing and decision making they may believe that they are using external socializing resources to help them make informed decisions, they in fact are making decisions based on other internal instincts and reactions that they have little conscious control over.

---

Synergies and Interactions

There are a few other personality filters that are relevant (e.g. work with to enhance or diminish) to the Compatibility-Seeking phenotype. Links will be provided as they are defined. These are:

• The Skepticism Personality Filter - when strong, is focused on Truth, and the general need to verify what is being stated as truth, or thought to be observed as a pattern.
  
  
• The Faith Personality Filter - when strong, tends to believe without additional rational confirmation. When combined with the expression of the Compatibility-Seeking Filter, there may be a tendency to jump to conclusions about the robustness or credibility of the messages one consumes before their true veracity has been demonstrated.
  
  
• The Intelligence Personality Filter - when strong, the general ability to learn material and retain it. That's going to be a plus for the rate at which indoctrination is achieved.
  
  
• The Imaginative (or Creative) Personality Filter - when strong, the ability to craft novel explanations or proposals from learned material that is different from the explanations given generally or by an alternate authority figure.
  
  
• The Pattern Recognition Filter - when weak, the ability to perceive legitimate patterns or associations (or, lack thereof) is compromised. This renders easier indoctrination that might otherwise be challenged with conflicting associations, patterns, and facts.

Now, each one of the filters above are also possessed by most. However, since they, like Compatibility-Seeking, are also Spectrum Filters, each of us expresses their phenotypes to greater or lesser degrees as well. As discussed elsewhere, each individual has its own spectrum setting for each behavioral or perceptive phenotype.

This leads to a recognition conundrum, as it does with other filters.

We could take any Filter as an example, but since this is a chapter on the compatibility-driven instinct, lets elaborate on this difficulty with the Compatibility-Seeking Personality Spectrum Filter. And, while a number of other Spectrum Filters impact the perception of the Compatibility-Seeking, we'll choose just one for illustration - the Analytical Filter.

---

An Example of Interfering Filters

It may often be said (by a few) that those with a strong Compatibility-Seeking Filter do not have a strong Analytical filter. While that may occasionally be accurate, in reality the situation is marginally more complex. Often, individuals with a strong Compatibility-Seeking filter (useful for initiating the embrace of new perspectives or paradigms) are VERY much aware of the Analytical (e.g. rational / logical) aspects of an issue. Their strong Compatibility-Seeking filter, however, confounds the recognition of their operating Analytical Filter by those who have a lower Compatibility-Seeking Filter expression.

People without a strong Compatibility-Seeking Filter cannot appreciate the importance of its influence because they cannot see it. The more easily indoctrinated ARE responding to their urge for truth, but their facility for skepticism has been hijacked or degraded by their urge for resonance (with people or narratives). True skepticism questions without regard to the direction or nature of the eventual conclusion that will be reached. Among the easily indoctrinated, a degraded pseudo-skepticism is employed to skew the eventual conclusions that are made to a preferred outcome.

Under these circumstances, while a strong Analytical Filter may be possessed by some with a strong Compatibility-Seeking Filter, its facility is skewed by the impact of a hijacked Skepticism filter. The Analytical facility now operates with a limp.

Thus, while weak Analytical and Skepticism Personality Spectrum Filters enable a Compatibility-Seeking Filter to operate relatively efficiently, it may occasionally be the case that strong expressers of these filters are present with a strong Compatibility-Seeking Filter but are being interfered with.

For this reason, the advantage of the Analytical and Skepticism Filters for ferreting truth from conjecture or effective rhetoric may be compromised when a strong Compatibility-Seeking filter is present.

---

A Discussion of Friendship and Belonging

This Chapter's Index:     Indoctrination Influences in Friendship     Bidirectional Parent/Child Adaptation     Assumption of Group Identity, Habits and Culture     Numerical Impact on Influence Direction     Why Cultures Persist     Indoctrination Momentum and Trait Selection     War as a Resolution to Conflicting World-views     Indoctrination, Domestication, and Natural Synergy

Let's discuss how the Compatibility-Seeking Personality Spectrum Filter works for us in practice. We'll touch on one or more of the following. What is not discussed here is left to the reader to contemplate. Remember, comments are welcome using the link at the end of this page.

• The Influence of Indoctrination in Making and being Influenced by Friends
  No one meets another and comes to the acquaintance with a blank slate. We come "pre-loaded" as it were with our own filter states. These personality spectrum filters are not a priori static. They are tunable, and are adaptable to some degree based on the characteristics of the environment we find ourselves in. That environment includes the people we meet and wind up surrounding ourselves with.
  
  We have all heard various motivation speakers and writers who have suggested to us that:
  • "If you want to loose weight, hang out with your fat friends less, and your fit friends more." Or,
    
    
  • "If you want to grow your ambition in life, hang out with your un-motivated friends less, and your high achieving friends more." Or,
    
    
  • "If you want to increase your fitness, find a coach or a friend who will work out with you."
  
  Why? Because a bit of the habits of the people we surround ourselves with wind up rubbing off on us ... if we want them to. And much more effectively than if we attempt to think our way into a new or more desired perspective alone.
  
  At the same time, the degree to which our filters are tuneable (e.g. that we are adaptable) changes with both time and circumstance.
  
  At any rate, when we meet another, our filters will determine to a large extent whether we will become friends, become mere acquaintances, or perhaps be most comfortable not ever engaging with that person again!. And yet, for those people who we will become friends with it is also the case that we are not going to be entirely compatible. Since we are all built differently, the odds are astronomical (but not impossible) that we will ever meet someone we are perfectly compatible with. And yet, as social creatures, we are drawn to relationships with at least a few of the others "almost" like us. What do we do? We adapt. We become changed slightly by the other (at least when we are with them, if not more permanently.) We become habituated differently and compatibility is enhanced. A bi-directional indoctrination of friends has taken place.
  
     Back to This Chapter's Index   
  
  
  
• Bidirectional Parent/Child Compatibility Adaptation and Indoctrination
  Oh yes, this works both ways! Children are surely influenced by their parents' world views, even if they are to rebel against them later (and, more on "Rebellion" later...). But what parent has not observed that what they regarded as their normal habits and preferences did certainly change somewhat as a result of their having kids, and that those new habits in thinking and preferences very soon became "normal" to them?
  
     Back to This Chapter's Index   
  
  
• Indoctrination and the Assumption of Group Identity, Habits, and Culture
  When I was much younger, I had an interesting experience. The undergraduate university that I attended did not have a Greek system. Instead, undergraduates were assigned randomly to each of the "Residential Colleges" before matriculation. Every undergraduate was a member of a residential college, membership was permanent, and only very rarely was a change in college membership either requested or approved. The residential colleges served both as on-campus student housing, the cafeteria, and the organizing social sphere for its members. While all students interacted with all others as one normally would, one's residential college was "home", and you were its citizen. When residential college teams competed, for example, the teams were made up only of its own members, they did not trade players or create teams "under their flag" made up of members from other colleges.
  
  
  
  Interestingly, assignment to a residential college was nearly completely random. One could request a specific college assignment before matriculation, but few of those requests were made. A preference was indicated for either a single-sex or a coed college, and those requests were filled when possible. The only time applicant "assessments" and assignments came into play was when roommate assignments were being generated for entering freshman.
  
  What was astounding to observe was that rather quickly, within a matter of a couple of months, one could meet a previously unknown student, and know with a high degree of certainty which residential college he or she was from. Without regard to race, ethnic group, or where in the nation (or world) a student was from, you could "just tell" which college they were a member of. Each college had its own "personality", and each member seemed to reflect that to some degree. There didn't seem to be any pressure to "conform" in any way. Everyone simply felt invited to "be who you are, and be us."
  
  Of course, the "college" personalities did not take shape and evolve randomly each year. Entering freshman matriculated with returning upper class students who were there to welcome them during an intense pre-semester week of activities, registration, and orientation. Each freshman had a student advisor assigned to them. As advisors, we were not aware that we were engaging in any sort of compatibility-driven indoctrinating activity at all - we were just there to help smooth out the transition to undergraduate life, and to make sure the new freshman were welcome.
  
  And yet, it is undeniable that indoctrination happened, as all got to know each other and worked out how to get along with one another.
  
     Back to This Chapter's Index   
  
  
  
• The Impact of Numbers on the Direction of Influence
  Per the example above, it is also undeniable that while the residential college as a whole was made up of the personalities of each of its members, it was also true that the incoming freshman (the minority group) were more dramatically impacted than the upper class students (the majority group), as the recognizable "group identity" of each college seemed to change very little over the four years I was there.
  
     Back to This Chapter's Index   
  
  
• Why Cultures Persist (see above regarding numbers)
  So we see in the example above (and, all of us have differing observations of a similar nature, often with much larger groups) that there is an algebra of sorts involved with the formation of cultures and their maintenance. "Assimilation" occurs, but most visibly in the direction of those having previously been "non-members" adopting the existing culture of those that are currently "members." This is not to say that the new entrants don't impact the existing culture, they most certainly do! However, what we observe is that the majority has a greater impact on the minority than vice versa.
  
  In our age of Political Correctness (which ConserveLiberty rejects as an interference to describing the truth of a thing, and most certainly does not embrace here or in any other section of this resource!) it might often be inferred from the above that the minority is somehow "suffering" or being "wronged" by the algebra as described. That would be a grave mistake in the understanding of the mechanisms of compatibility-seeking. We are not describing, illustrating, or meaning to infer a "rightness" or a "wrongness" in any of this description. We are instead reaching for an understanding of "The Truth of What Occurs" when people meet each other and follow their natural instincts.
  
  
  
  So long as people are indoctrinatable to some degree (e.g. impacted by the interaction with others (or ideas) through communication in some way such that what they prefer to do or how they prefer to regard things becomes changed from what it had been (and, they prefer it that way!)) ... and so long as people care to interact positively with others (e.g. have a sufficiently active Compatibility-Seeking Spectrum Filter) ... then people will change slightly upon interaction with others.
  • In a one-on-one dynamic, both may move in compatible directions more equally between each other.
  • In a situation where one or a small group is assimilating into a larger group, the direction of movement will favor the direction of the "more numerous" exerting more compatibility-driven influences on the "less numerous."
  
  That is just the "way things work", and "these things" probably work that way among social animals for a reason.
  
  Of course, some may not indoctrinate. In that case, those do not assimilate. To each their own.
  
     Back to This Chapter's Index   
  
  
• The Influence of Indoctrination Momentum on Genetic Trait Selection
  Without elaborating too long and hard on this, let's simply consider that in general, trait selection happens when survivability to the age of reproduction is enhanced over another competing trait. (Reproduction is key here. Traits flow with lineage. Lineage propagates via reproduction. The individual is simply the mechanism through which reproduction, and thus trait propagation is delivered.)
  
  So, if there is something about a particular culture that is in conflict with the way a particular individual is built, and if it is so onerous that elimination pressures are applied prior to significant reproduction, then those conflicting traits will become reduced generation to generation so long as the selective pressures remain.
  
  In the modern era, we do not see too much trait selection occurring. In fact, in "tolerant" societies, many more behaviors find acceptance, may be regarded as interesting, and can usually find sufficient niche or mainstream appeal to survive. There are both positive and negative consequences to this tolerance:
  • On the positive side, accepted variation in behaviors can lead to increased rates of innovation and standards of living as a broad range of people are free to leverage what they are good at in order to solve challenges in ways that are relevant and valued to them.
  • One negative consequence is that blanket tolerance (often masking cowardice or insecurity) can lead to the nurturing of patently degrading and corrosive cultures which do not bode well for the general conservation of liberty that leads to thriving societies.
  
  Examples can be given for both new trait selection mechanisms (new trait positively outcompetes alternate) and trait elimination mechanisms (old trait now found unacceptable vs. alternate).
  
  We can give an active example from the present time (in 2015 as of this writing):

  Jihad by Islamic Extremists

  The progression of trait propagation in scenarios such as that given above is just as predictable epidemiologically as would be:
  • the spread of other traits in other animals or plants when there is very little competing pressure to halt it, or,
  • the spread of reproductive cancer cells throughout an otherwise healthy body.
  
  Eventually, the trait that chokes out or exterminates its competitors becomes dominant. Since (using the example above) the exterminating group sees no value in compatibility-seeking with their opponent cultures, but rather elects to eliminate them, and since the opponent cultures generally have strong compatibility-seeking instincts that inhibit an effective defensive response, the exterminators will prevail, as will the submissive behaviors they are selecting for.
  
  ConserveLiberty does not pretend to know the future, and does not advocate political outcomes. It does, of course, advocate for the Conservation of Liberty.
  
  
  • The jihadists ARE taking steps to ensure their own conservation of the liberty to be what they are, and to do what they do.
    
    
  • Those who favor liberty and tolerance are frustrated in that they do not seem to be able to find a win-win narratives where conflicting and threatening world-views have the liberty to coexist peacefully.
    
    
  The issue is that the tolerant classically liberal are attempting to resolve uncomfortable conflicts in the least uncomfortable manner. (They have strong compatibility-seeking instincts!) People who regard themselves as civilized in "western" cultures are repulsed by notions of extermination as a solution for anything (other than, ironically, non-human pests, infestations, infections and diseases.)
  
  But alas, "Nature does not convert. It selects." - David Apollo
  
  Conflicting and threatening world-views can only exist separately. Once the natural boundaries separating them have been breached, nature will not convert or assimilate them. A selection will occur. It will be one or the other once they are no longer separated. And the agents of that selection will be the individuals in conflict.
  
     Back to This Chapter's Index   
  
  
• War as a Resolution to Conflicting Indoctrinated World-views
  Because:
  • of the algebra involved, and
  • indoctrination has momentum, and
  • compatibility-seeking only occurs among those who believe they can be comfortable with each other, and
  • influence occurs solely from persons or groups whose approval have value ...
  
  ... it becomes apparent that two groups whose intra-group adherents are strongly indoctrinated but whose inter-group perspectives are in conflict with one another are not going to resolve their differences peacefully via mutually assimilating activities.
  
  Another way of putting it - two cultures that disagree over perspectives and world-views and who do not see value in the approval of the other are not going to embrace each other productively. Because assimilation requires a mutually active compatibility-seeking mechanism, they will not assimilate. If there is competition for resources, for example, they will mistrust each other because they will not develop "honored social contracts" (those commitments to the others' well being that are evidenced with action and are not written down) with each other.
  
  In time, since the conflicts are not resolvable through assimilating activities, war (either minor or major) results. It continues until the threats to whoever is the "winner" of the war are convincingly reduced to "negligible."
  
  The only point ConserveLiberty is making is that in some conflicts, assimilation and compatibility building is not possible. In that instance, when one is seen as a threat to the other, war results. In a war of this type, extermination, or at minimum a significant reduction in numbers of opposing reproductive combatants and their families, is the quickest way to the end of conflict.
  
  It is possible that after significant population reduction, the remnant population may be assimilated normally, as has occurred numerous times in earlier human history.
  
  Should both opposing sides embark on an extermination campaign, then the surviving cultures will be those who in the end were luckier and more cunning than the other. Again, as has certainly occurred numerous times throughout earlier human and hominid history.
  
  This explains in part why modern warfare (after World War II) seems to win battles but never seems to result in peace. If the enemy (specifically, those who will not assimilate with you) is not going to be dramatically reduced, than in the end you are left with a significant enemy. Unfortunately for humankind, peace (for the winner) from time to time requires a thorough elimination of those who want you dead. This issue is not one of simply being good enough to make sense with one another and come to an amicable agreement. This issue is about the mechanisms humankind, as a social animal, uses to get along with and prosper with one another. That mechanism requires compatibility-seeking and assimilation among willing participants - because the mechanism is mediated via the Compatibility-Seeking Personality Spectrum Filter. Other filters, such as the Analytical Personality Spectrum Filter, while relevant, are far less important.
  
     Back to This Chapter's Index   
  
  
• Indoctrination and the domestication of pets, animals, livestock, plants, and general natural synergy
  This portion will be updated in a later revision.
  
  In addition, this section may be updated to further discuss our sharing of the Compatibility-Seeking Personality Spectrum Filter with other animals, such as canines, birds, and insects.
  
     Back to This Chapter's Index   

---

---

  Check out other Filter posts  

---

filters/141227_filter_compatibility.php