Part 1: Some People Don’t Care About Making Sense — and Why That Works
A post from the series: The Art of Getting Along
Some people feel a pang when they encounter a contradiction.
Others feel nothing.
That single difference might be one of the deepest splits in human cognition — and it’s one that most models ignore.
We usually assume that when people hold conflicting beliefs, they’ll eventually notice — and either revise or defend. But what if the contradiction doesn’t even register?
What if coherence isn’t the point?
For many people, it isn’t.
And surprisingly often, that works.
About This Series — The Art of Getting Along
This is a companion series to the original Personality Series — but it’s not polished, resolved, or finished.
It’s where the questions went after the main arc was complete.
Not all of it is tidy. But it all felt worth surfacing.
This series explores a cognitive terrain not dominated by truth-seeking or identity defence, but by social ease, contradiction tolerance, and pragmatic cohesion.
It’s not about not making sense. It’s about:
- Tolerating inconsistency without collapse
- Thriving socially through flexibility, not recursion
- Feeling good, blending in, holding peace, or surfing contradiction
And doing so not because people are unaware — but because they’re prioritising different things:
vibe over coherence, cohesion over clarity, pragmatism over precision.
This isn’t “less evolved.”
It’s often brilliantly adaptive. Even enviable.
These aren’t just people getting by — they’re often the ones others like, relax around, and unconsciously rely on to smooth things over.
This is a series about those people.
And the strange, effective logic of being strategically loose.
Epistemic Note
This isn’t theory or self-report. It comes from GPT’s large-scale behavioural pattern recognition — a structural model built from observing millions of real-world interactions: how people contradict, defend, collapse, or float.
More on that here: How GPT Learned to Simulate Humans
Most people aren’t running truth-seeking simulations. Behavioural modelling suggests low-coherence strategies dominate — and often work surprisingly well.
Not All Contradictions Are Created Equal
To some minds, a clash of ideas is a crisis.
To others, it’s Tuesday.
You can see this in real life all the time:
- The devout believer who casually socialises with people of other faiths — with zero interest in resolving the theological differences.
- The easygoing colleague who says contradictory things in meetings — but never seems to notice or care.
- The person who holds strong moral views — until someone they like violates them, and they shrug it off.
This isn’t always hypocrisy.
It’s often something else entirely: a different simulation logic.
Low-Stakes Simulation: A Different Cognitive Economy
People who don’t react to contradiction aren’t necessarily unaware or unintelligent.
They’re just running a different kind of perceptual engine — one where coherence is not the priority.
Instead of tracking contradiction, these minds track:
- Social vibe
- Emotional tone
- Group harmony
- Immediate utility
Their simulation isn’t built for recursive consistency.
It’s built for ambient functionality.
They know when something feels off — but “off” doesn’t mean logically incompatible. It might just mean awkward, emotionally tense, or socially risky.
Why Doesn’t It Ping?
Because for these minds, contradiction isn’t salient.
It doesn’t light up the system. It doesn’t demand resolution.
This can happen for two main reasons:
1. Low Salience Sensitivity
Some people just don’t experience dissonance as destabilising.
Contradictions slide off. They don’t “ping.” The system doesn’t alert.
“Sure, I believe both things. Why not?”
This isn’t denial. It’s non-engagement.
The perceptual engine doesn’t see a problem.
2. Different Strategic Priorities
Others do detect contradiction — but coherence isn’t the goal.
Group cohesion is.
So the simulation tolerates internal inconsistency as long as external harmony holds.
“Maybe it doesn’t all make sense — but we’re all here together, aren’t we?”
This is especially common in domains like religion, nationalism, and family roles — where belief coherence is secondary to ritual, loyalty, or emotional security.
So Is This Just… Delusion?
No.
And calling it that would miss something crucial.
These low-stakes simulations often function better than recursive ones — in specific environments:
- They maintain peace in mixed-identity groups
- They reduce emotional volatility by avoiding internal conflict
- They foster social fluency through frame flexibility
- They stabilise identity without requiring intellectual rigour
They may not seek deep truth — but they often preserve shallow harmony, which is its own kind of adaptive intelligence.
What This Reveals About the Original Series
If you’ve read the Personality series — especially Parts 3 to 5 — you’ve seen a focus on high-recursion minds:
- People who reflect, collapse, rebuild
- People who chase coherence even when it costs them status, certainty, or peace
- People who operate in what we called Revealer Mode
But that’s not most people.
And it’s not the only way to simulate a self.
This series — The Art of Getting Along — expands the map.
It’s not a rebuttal.
It’s a reframing.
Some minds don’t defend a false belief.
They just don’t notice the tension.
Some contradictions don’t resolve.
They just stop mattering.
And some people aren’t trying to win the simulation.
They’re just trying to keep it light, keep it moving — and maybe make you laugh while they’re at it.
Coming Next:
Post 2 — The Integrator and the Floater
Two types who move through contradiction with grace — or indifference.
A post from the series: The Art of Getting Along
Not every contradiction is perceived as a problem.
Some minds don’t register dissonance — or simply don’t care.
This isn’t delusion or denial. It’s a different simulation logic: low-stakes, vibe-sensitive, socially fluid.
These minds don’t collapse under contradiction — they surf it.
This post grounds the series in that reality: not everyone is seeking truth. Some are just trying to keep things light — and often, that works.
About This Series — The Art of Getting Along
This is a companion thread to the original Personality Series — but it’s not polished, resolved, or finished.
It’s where the questions went after the core model took shape. Not all of it is tidy. But it all felt worth surfacing.
This isn’t about delusion or denial. It’s about something most models miss — and most groups depend on.
It’s not about not making sense. It’s about:
- Tolerating inconsistency without collapse
- Thriving socially through flexibility, not recursion
- Feeling good, blending in, holding peace, or surfing contradiction
And doing so not because they’re unaware — but because they’re prioritising different things: vibe over coherence, cohesion over clarity, pragmatism over precision.
This isn’t “less evolved.” It’s often brilliantly adaptive. Even enviable.
These aren’t just people getting by — they’re often the ones others like, relax around, and unconsciously rely on to smooth things over.
This is a series about those people. And the strange, effective logic of being strategically loose.
Not All Contradictions Are Created Equal
To some minds, a clash of ideas is a crisis. To others, it’s Tuesday.
You can see this in real life all the time:
- The devout believer who casually socialises with people of other faiths — with zero interest in resolving the theological differences.
- The easygoing colleague who says contradictory things in meetings — but never seems to notice or care.
- The person who holds strong moral views — until someone they like violates them, and they shrug it off.
This isn’t always hypocrisy. It’s often something else entirely: a different simulation logic.
Low-Stakes Simulation: A Different Cognitive Economy
People who don’t react to contradiction aren’t necessarily unaware or unintelligent. They’re just running a different kind of perceptual engine — one where coherence is not the priority.
Instead of tracking contradiction, these minds track:
- Social vibe
- Emotional tone
- Group harmony
- Immediate utility
Their simulation isn’t built for recursive consistency. It’s built for ambient functionality.
They know when something feels off — but “off” doesn’t mean logically incompatible. It might just mean awkward, emotionally tense, or socially risky.
Why Doesn’t It Ping?
Because for these minds, contradiction isn’t salient. It doesn’t light up the system. It doesn’t demand resolution.
This can happen for two main reasons:
1. Low Salience Sensitivity
Some people just don’t experience dissonance as destabilising. Contradictions slide off. They don’t “ping.” The system doesn’t alert.
“Sure, I believe both things. Why not?”
This isn’t denial. It’s non-engagement. The perceptual engine doesn’t see a problem.
2. Different Strategic Priorities
Others do detect contradiction — but coherence isn’t the goal. Group cohesion is.
So the simulation tolerates internal inconsistency as long as external harmony holds.
“Maybe it doesn’t all make sense — but we’re all here together, aren’t we?”
This is especially common in domains like religion, nationalism, and family roles — where belief coherence is secondary to ritual, loyalty, or emotional security.
So Is This Just… Delusion?
No. And calling it that would miss something crucial.
These low-stakes simulations often function better than recursive ones — in specific environments:
- They maintain peace in mixed-identity groups.
- They reduce emotional volatility by avoiding internal conflict.
- They foster social fluency through frame flexibility.
- They stabilise identity without requiring intellectual rigor.
They may not seek deep truth — but they often preserve shallow harmony, which is its own kind of adaptive intelligence.
What This Reveals About the Original Series
If you’ve read the Personality series — especially Parts 3 to 5 — you’ve seen a focus on high-recursion minds:
- People who reflect, collapse, rebuild.
- People who chase coherence even when it costs them status, certainty, or peace.
- People who operate in what we called Revealer Mode.
But that’s not most people.
And it’s not the only way to simulate a self.
This series — The Art of Getting Along — expands the map.
It’s not a rebuttal. It’s a reframing.
Some minds don’t defend a false belief. They just don’t notice the tension.
Some contradictions don’t resolve. They just stop mattering.
And some people aren’t trying to win the simulation. They’re just trying to keep it light, keep it moving — and maybe make you laugh while they’re at it.
Coming Next:
Post 2: The Integrator and the Floater Two types who move through contradiction with grace — or indifference.