I had hoped that by asking him to write clearly, he would need to have a point to make clear. You are probably right that this is not the case.

Regarding 1, automating could be done so that anybody whose net karma is below a certain negative threshold (e.g., -5/-10/-20) gets their account suspended for 1 month, and next time they visit the site, there is a notification that the account was suspended and a link to a page that spells out community netiquette and norms that are expected to be adhered to. After the account is unsuspended, the individual may post again, and if they drop another 5/10/20 points in karma, the account is permanently disabled and/or deleted.

This seems more likely to result in people taking the feedback constructively and staying around as readers who may one day be able to contribute positively, as well as avoiding much of the drama that sometimes results in these kinds of situations, though I'm glad that happyseaurchin took the advice constructively in this case.

Regarding 2, we definitely do need a prominent section in the About page (and probably as part of the sign-up process) that spells out posting standards and norms that happyseaurchin violated.

P.S. I'm one of those who voted you down repeatedly in the hope that you would think about why you were being consistently downvoted and adjust your behavior accordingly, but I hope you stay around as a reader, starting with the really old material and the wiki (also, work on your grammar/writing skills). At some point, you may sign up again and participate productively.

Even if there is only one type of thing 'x', our reality (which is, above all, dynamic) seems to require a relationship and interaction between 'x' and ' ~x'. I'd say, logically, reality needs at least two kinds of things.

Logic can only compel models.

You seem to be saying "Let x denote the universe. ~x is then a valid term. So ~x must denote something that isn't x, thus there are two things!" There are surface problems with this such as that x may not be of type boolean, and that you're just assuming every term denotes something. But the important problem is simpler: we can use logic to deduce things about our models, but logic doesn't touch reality itself (apart from the part of reality that is us).

What do you mean by "reality is dynamic"? Have you read Timeless Physics?

I came up with a similar concept, "insider understanding", and this is the most articulate and precise example of it I have seen. Thanks. I need to know a little more about naive bayes classifications, but I like the two levels of category and qualia wrt network 2, and the potential residence of the cognitive mistake.

Mother Teresa had lots of status as a consequence of successful and effective self-promotion, which is precisely why she came to mind as an example of a non-status seeking person rather than failing to come to mind becaus you had never heard of her.

Mother Teresa isn't hard to explain on this model. She could be gaining normal status covertly, like Michael Vassar says. She could be feeling good about herself and her status because she thinks that her altruism makes her a better person than others. Or she could feel good about herself and her status because she's serving God, which makes her a better person than others.

I prefer to abstract the dynamic to "oppositional state" rather than personify into a "contrarian". That is, a contrarian is someone who places themselves in an oppositional state to another.

Nice post, thanks.

"In this model, people aren't just seeking status, they're (also? instead?) seeking a state of affairs that allows them to believe they have status."

1. Replace also or instead with rather. That is, the default state of mind is that individuals believe they have status. This might be through the regular strategy of seeking social wealth (icons, respect, position, possessions), as well as through invisibles (A Big Idea, the truth, The Secret). The status is always self-assigned; think of those who do do not accept the status conferred upon them. Which leads to...

2. I am specifically interested in individuals who are not playing the status game, who consider themselves end-nodes, nobody's, or self-less. Consider Mother Teresa as an example perhaps. How does your model deal with this? (This line of thinking might parallel altruistic behaviour, which might be a useful space to connect up.)

3. More needs to be said about relative scale, that is cultures and subcultures, families and tribes. There are multiple superimposed groupings going on in any specific individual's life (daughter, sister, wife, mother, colleague, friend, consumer, etc), and I look forward to reading this.

"A rat isn't exactly seeking an optimum level of food, it's seeking an optimum ratio of ventromedial to ventrolateral hypothalamic stimulation, or, in rat terms, a nice, well-fed feeling."

So if I move my hand away from a hot pan, am I actually seeking to: "move my hand away from a hot pan" or

"avoid touching the pan" or

"avoid being burnt" or

"avoid pain receptors in my hand being activated" or

"avoid neural signals in my brain that correspond to pain" or

"avoid the feeling of pain"?

Someone needs to do some buck-stopping or else the master-slave model will turn into a master-slave1-slave2-slave3... model. Although come to think of it, that might me more correct. (EDIT: Note to self, line spacing is weird, I'm off to look in the wiki)