Start of a derivative, e.g. [DERIVATIVE01]
End of a derivative, e.g. [/DERIVATIVE01]
Subderivative (derivative of a component of the paradigm rather than of the entire paradigm)
[BOUNDARIES] Boundaries (referring to "Base paradigm" and/or derivates of such)
1: Binary+non-contingent = each person can be (and necessarily is) described by one of those nine 'types', and the answer of the question of whether someone belongs to one type can be either 'yes' or 'no'
2: Binary+contingent = each person can be (but not necessarily is) described by one of those nine 'types', and in the case that someone CAN be described by one of those types, then the answer can be either 'yes' or 'no'
3: Fuzzy+non-contingent (monotypical) = each person can be (and necessarily is) described by one of those nine 'types', and the answer of the question of whether someone belongs to one type can have multiple degrees, such as someone can belong 'more' or 'less' to a type compared to another person. Regardless of the degree (as long as it's non-zero), only one typology per person is allowed (and required)
4: Fuzzy+non-contingent (polytypical) = each person can be (and necessarily is) described by at least one of those nine 'types', and the answer of the question of whether someone belongs to one type can have multiple degrees, such as someone can belong 'more' or 'less' to a type compared to another person. It is possible that one person can be described by more than one typology.
5: Fuzzy+contingent (monotypical): each person can be (but not necessarily is) described by one of those nine 'types', and in the case that someone CAN be described by one of those types, then the answer can have multiple degrees, such as someone can belong 'more' or 'less' to a type compared to another person. Regardless of the degree (as long as it's non-zero), only one typology per person is allowed at most.
6: Fuzzy+contingent (polytypical): each person can be (but not necessarily is) described by at least one of those nine 'types', and in the case that someone CAN be described by one (or more) of those types, then the answer can have multiple degrees, such as someone can belong 'more' or 'less' to a type compared to another person. It is possible that one person can be described by more than one typology.
[/BOUNDARIES]
[BASE PARADIGM]
So I'm creating a new typology for people
Pick one that is most important to you:
-Avoiding pain
-Obtaining pleasure
-A balanced orientation
And then pick one:
-Id (immediate gratification)
-Ego (deferred gratification)
-Superego (doing what is good)
Type 1 - balanced, doing what is good
Type 2 - seeking pleasure, immediate gratification
Type 3 - seeking pleasure, deferred gratification
Type 4 - seeking pleasure, doing what is good
Type 5 - avoiding pain, doing what is good
Type 6 - avoiding pain, deferred gratification
Type 7 - avoiding pain, immediate gratification
Type 8 - balanced, immediate gratification
Type 9 - balanced, deferred gratification
Irrational fixations: pain avoidance, pleasure attainment, neutral
Rational fixations: immediate gratification, delayed gratification, doing what is good
Pain avoidance = more sources in the environment I am repelled from
Pleasure attainment = more sources in the environment I am attracted to
Neutral = sensical approach to the environment, not overly fearful or overly desiring
Immediate gratification = the present is the only thing I have
Delayed gratification = planning my life out
Doing what is good = gratification for myself and others
So each type would be
irrational fixation + primary rational fixation + secondary rational fixation
Social 5 = pain avoidance + superego + superego
Irrational fixation = where you stand with regards to hedonism (two hedonistic poles: avoiding pain and obtaining pleasure)
Rational fixation = how you pursue that hedonism
Type = combination of fixations
[/BASE PARADIGM
][DERIVATIVE01] (similar to base paradigm but better ordered and with better formatting, though the various terms and phrases are still left undefined)
Trait 1:
-Avoiding pain
-Obtaining pleasure
-Balanced orientation
Trait 2:
-Immediate gratification
-Deferred gratification
-Doing what is good
Type 1: avoiding pain, immediate gratification
Type 2: avoiding pain, deferred gratification
Type 3: avoiding pain, doing what is good
Type 4: obtaining pleasure, immediate gratification
Type 5: obtaining pleasure, deferred gratification
Type 6: obtaining pleasure, doing what is good
Type 7: balanced orientation, immediate gratification
Type 8: balanced orientation, deferred gratification
Type 9: balanced orientation, doing what is good
Irrational fixations: pain avoidance, pleasure attainment, neutral
Rational fixations: immediate gratification, delayed gratification, doing what is good
Pain avoidance: more sources in the environment I am repelled from
Pleasure attainment: more sources in the environment I am attracted to
Neutral: sensical approach to the environment, not overly fearful or overly desiring
Immediate gratification: the present is the only thing I have
Delayed gratification: planning my life out
Doing what is good: gratification for myself and others
Components of each type:
Irrational fixation + primary rational fixation + secondary rational fixation
Irrational fixation = where you stand with regards to hedonism (two hedonistic poles: avoiding pain and obtaining pleasure)
Rational fixation = how you pursue that hedonism
Type = combination of fixations
[/DERIVATIVE01]
[Subderivates of: hedonistic poles]
[SD1] 'avoiding pain and obtaining pleasure' (hedonism), & obtaining pain and avoiding pleasure' (asceticism/masochism) [/SD1]
[SD2] avoiding pain & obtaining pleasure [/SD2]
[SD3] avoiding pain & obtaining pleasure & obtaining pain (masochism) & avoiding pleasure (asceticism) [/SD3]
[SD4] avoiding pain and obtaining pleasure at all costs (the end justifies the means) & avoiding pain and obtaining pleasure only when the means are ethical and appropriate [/SD4]
[SUBDERIVATIVES of: doing what is good. What is "good"?]
[SD1] Choosing between immediate or delayed gratification based on some factor (as opposed to pursue either immediate or delayed gratification all the time for its own sake) [/SD1]
[SD2] Never pursuing gratification (asceticism and/or masochism) (as opposed to purse either immediate or delayed gratification) [/SD2]
[SD3] Killing oneself [/SD3]
[/SUBDERIVATIVES of: doing what is good]
[SUBDERIVATIVES of: Trait 1]
[SD1] Avoiding pain and obtaining pleasure are considered synonyms, because pain is seen as the lack of pleasure, and pleasure is seen as the lack of pain. There is no "neutral in-between" (though there can may be a situation where pain and pleasure are both present, in some sense). [/SD1]
[SD2] in SD2 pain and pleasure are seen as parts of a spectrum, which contains pleasure, pain, and something in-between, and therefore "avoiding pain" and "obtaining pleasure" are NOT considered synonyms in SD2. [/SD2]
[SD3] Avoiding pain and obtaining pleasure are considered synonyms, because pain is seen as the lack of pleasure, and pleasure is seen as the lack of pain. There is no "neutral in-between", and since, unlike in SD1, in SD3 there is no multi-dimensional/multi-layered view of pleasure and pain, one is either in a state of pleasure or in a state of pain. There can be a variant of this view where only two values (i.e. pleasure and pain) are allowed, which we'll call SD3.1, and a variant where pain and pleasure exist in degrees (which we'll call SD3.2), but nonetheless in both SD3 views, a subject can only feel either pain or pleasure. [/SD3]
[SD4] In SD4, pleasure and pain are distinguished between a physical and psychological/emotional form. For instance, psychological pleasure can over-ride physical pain in some circumstances (e.g. determination, bravery, stubborness, intensely valuing one's principles etc).
[SD5] In SD5, there are two forms of psychological pleasure and one form of physical pleasure. The two forms of psychological pleasure are: 'direct psychological pleasure(?)', when something makes you happy or whatever, and the other one is 'inverse psychological pleasure', that arises in a situation where you have either physical pain, or some kind of inconvenience, and you could had avoided that pain/inconvenience IF AND ONLY IF you compromised your values, or had committed an action you find unethical/immoral. Despite the pain/inconvenience, you feel psychological pleasure (usually pride or something similar) because you have stuck to your own ideals and principles despite the negative consequences.
[/SUBDERIVATIVES of Trait 1]
[TENDENCIES AND CONDITIONS]
Tendencies:
-Avoiding pain
-Obtaining pleasure
-A balanced orientation
-Immediate gratification
-Deferred gratification
-Doing what is good
Conditions:
-Avoiding pain/obtaining pleasure
--Under all conditions (Machiavellian personality)
--Under all conditions (short term), unless it causes pain in the long-term (i.e. it is considered acceptable to suffer in the short-term, at the condition that it avoids pain in the long-term) (Machievellian)
--Under all conditions (long term), unless it causes pain in the short-term (i.e. it is considered acceptable to suffer in the long-term, at the condition that it avoids pain in the short-term) (Machiavellian)
--Unless it causes pain to some person dear to oneself
---Variations: unless it causes pain to some person dear to oneself in the short-term (i.e. it is considered acceptable to avoid one's pain or obtain pleasure if the person dear to oneself suffers in the long-term, as long as s/he doesn't suffer in the short-term because of that search for pleasure)
---unless it causes pain to some person dear to oneself in the long-term (i.e. it is considered acceptable to avoid one's pain or obtain pleasure if the person dear to oneself suffers in the short-term, as long as s/he doesn't suffer in the long-term because of that search for pleasure)
--As long as the pain that is avoided (or the pleasure that is obtained) is greater than the pain it causes to some person dear to oneself.
Other variables: the degree of relationship one has with that person one is concerned about (i.e. one may care about avoiding causing collateral pain to someone dear to oneself, or even towards anyone, including strangers), the degree of pain one is willing to inflict upon others (and to whom) in order to avoid pain or obtain pleasure, and others.
Degree of immediateness/delay. Some criteria:
-How long is the pleasure delayed for?
-For what purpose is the pleasure delayed for? e.g. is it delayed for the sake of being delayed? Is it delayed because it's an action that gives best result when done with the proper timing (and therefore it's not delayed for the sake of being delayed)? Is it delayed because it is believed by the person that delayed gratification feels better (and therefore it's done to increase pleasure)? Is it delayed because doing such action immediately causes troubles (in this scenario, it's the immediateness in itself that is problematic)? It is delayed because doing such action at the time that happens to present causes trouble (in this scenario, it's the moment when the desire arises that is problematic, not necessarily the fact that it's achieved immediately)? etc
-Etc (there may be other criteria)
What does "doing what is good" mean? What is it that the individual perceives "what is good"? Qui bono (to whom is it good)? For oneself? For others? For some kind of abstract concept of the collective?
[/TENDENCIES AND CONDITIONS]
[CONCEPTIONS OF GRATIFICATION AND DELAY]
Conception of "gratification":
-Something good that happens to you without having to do anything in particular (e.g. if you are born in a non-Islamic country, you are generally allowed more "freedom" than if you are born in, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran).
-Something good that happens to you due to what you're currently doing (e.g. if you like eating chocolate and you eat chocolate, you feel good)
-Something good that happens to you due to something you did in the past (e.g. you are currently rich because you decided to be a doctor and study for it etc)
Another variable that may be added is the alienability of the grafitication, i.e. how long the gratification will last, and under what circumstances (if any) that gratification will be lost. E.g. if you move to an Islamic country, you will lose the privileges you once had (i.e. moving to an Islamic country removes your gratification). If you feel good because you're eating chocolate, you won't feel good after, idk... a few hours(?), because it was just a temporary pleasure (i.e. time removes your gratification). If you get fired from working as a doctor, then you possibly won't be that rich anymore (i.e. being fired may remove your gratification... but not necessarily, in this case).
Concept of 'delay':
-Standard/fixed delay: you have the possibility of delaying the grafitication so that it can happen X period of time later (than without delay). For example, you can tell your employer to give you money in 6 months, rather than this month... and you won't receive the pay for the next 6 months. But in 6 months you'll receive twice the pay (assuming you'll still work there).
-Perpetual delay: at each moment in time Y, the gratification is delayed for X period of time. Analogy of saying "I'll study tomorrow" everyday. The study will never happen.
-Conditional delay: at some moment in time, you delay the gratification for X period of time. The value of X is dependant on some variable (for example, if you do your chores, then the value of X decreases. If you're being lazy and not doing your chores, then the value of X increases).
-Strategic delay: at some moment of time, you delay the gratification for X period of time. The delay is not done for the sake of delay, but rather, there is a proper timing in which the gratification, if achieved, results in maximum benefit.
What are you willing to do in order to keep the gratification going?
For example, if your employer tells you to stop smoking otherwise s/he will fire you, would you stop smoking? Is stopping smoking a reasonable sacrifice to make in order to keep the gratification going? What if your employer tells you to perform a human sacrifice for the benefit of the hospital, and you should sacrifice some random child? Would that still be a reasonable sacrifice? One who has the trait of seeking pleasure and avoiding "pain" (defined as "not being as rich anymore", in this context) at all costs will indeed sacrifice that random child to keep working at that hospital, because under all conditions, the pleasure will be seeked for, and the "pain" will be avoided. This, of course, assumes that one feels no empathy for that child being sacrificed and that therefore one would not feel any remorse or guilt for sacrificing that child.
[/CONCEPTIONS OF GRATIFICATION AND DELAY]
[SUBDERIVATIVES OF THE FOLLOWING PORTION:
Pain avoidance: more sources in the environment I am repelled from
Pleasure attainment: more sources in the environment I am attracted to
Neutral: sensical approach to the environment, not overly fearful or overly desiring]
[SD1] Are there more sources in the environment you are repelled from/attracted to because your own standards have changed, or is it because the environment itself has changed, or a mixture or both reasons? SD1 introduces this distinction. [/SD1]
[SD2] No distinction between the reasons introduced in SD1. SD2 is standard-agnostic and environment-agnostic. [/SD2]
[SD3] Possible distinction between a rational and impulsive attraction/repulsion. Rational in this context would mean that what considers to be attractive or repulsive (and therefore what one tends to seek or avoid) is based on whether seeking or avoiding things based on those criteria will lead to an improvement of the quality of life (however 'improvement' is defined), and impulsive means that what is seeked or avoided is not motivated on improving one's quality of life (e.g. one may choose to seek or avoid certain things based on mindless habit or tradition, regardless of the consequences on one's quality of life). [/SD3]
[/SUBDERIVATIVES OF THE PORTION]