I just noticed that one of the things that I get from fiction is a kind of vicarious...pride? ...camaraderie? from competent people trusting each other.
In for instance, in urban fantasy, there's something that feels deeply Good about the moments when the wizard and the cop work together to get the job done.
Neither one fully understands the other's work, or the constraints that they work under, but they _do_ trust each other's expertise and each other's moral commitment.
When lives are on the line, they both move to save them, together, and depend on each other.
There's especially something about the cop who "doesn't belive in magic", but who somehow, respects the wizard, and has his back, in the heat of the moment.
Or the Catholic Paladin and the wizard.
Obviously, they have some differences, but they can identify and trust each other's basic moral integrity. They know each other to be good people.
I think maybe I generally have strong feelings about individuals stepping up to do the right thing, and the people who are doing that seeing each other in that and trusting each other for it.
There's something about good people seeing the goodness in each other, across divides of belief, or creed, or expertise, or tradition, that I get something from.
"I don't begin to understand how he operates. But I trust him to ante up when it counts."
In some fundamental way, "we're on the same side."
I think this maybe gives some important insight into my psychology / motivation structure.
It matters to me that all of the good people are on the same side, despite everything else. And it feels _right_ when they trust each other.
But I think it is basically how human impulse control works. If a person chronically makes "bad" short-term-oriented choices, it may very well be because they _correctly_ don't depend on themselves to be able to execute on a long term strategy.
Suppose you were offered the following opportunity: Using highly advanced, but completely safe, psychological methods, your values and personality can be permanently altered.
The changes would be minor enough that you are not just being overwritten, replacing your mind with a different person; your parents would still recognize you as you. But they would be big enough that you would make different life choices and have a different life trajectory.
All of the changes would be in the direction generally considered "good": you'd become happier, more diligent, more conscientious, more prosocial, less neurotic.
A realization that probably is obvious to people who are more savvy than me:
For most people, a lot of behavior is motivated, not on the basis of the merits of the behavior, but because it provides a template for social engagement.
I'm in Las Vegas for a conference today. I was wandering around the casino in which the conference is being hosted, and watching the people.
I was poking around in gift shop and saw two women looking through the clothes.
I'm not entirely sure what cognitive sequence lead me to that distinction, but I think it might have been (in part) downstream of editing my current date-me page (elityre.com/date.html).
This section felt kind of grammatically weird to me. And I think it was because I was sort of switching back and forth between talking about the the kind of relationship and the kind of person.
Looking at it now, it doesn't feel as awkward, though. So dunno.
I think part of it was that I was a little bit more tapped into the STATE of what I want, instead of working with abstracted descriptors.