sub-agents typology

I'm coming to think that a useful typology for people can come from looking at the network dynamics of the sub-agentic architecture that underpins the way people process information and determine actions. There are several archetypes.

There are people who have a supreme leader, extremely rigid, ideologically committed, and essentially just directly tell every sub-agent at any level of the hierarchy what to do, and they cannot say no. In other words, some people live under self-imposed authoritarianism, and because the sub-agents actually tend to not like this in the long term, unless it's really adaptive in a given circumstance, which can happen, they rebel. And so there are internal struggle dynamics and potential communist revolutions that may threaten the stability of the personality, which in turn gets projected outwards in behavioral markers of having to control others so as to control yourself and the sub-agents that are seeking to rebel against your own totalitarianism.

There are then people who have more of a swarm self-organizing system where sub-agents only interact to the extent that they need to, and information is only shared to the extent that it needs to. Highly pragmatic people without an overarching goal structure, but more of a survival and adaptation and shape-shifting approach to life, which of course tends to lack global consistency. And as such, there are lots of arbitrage problems with people like this, both internally and externally. Then there are people who function in a hierarchical way, but with soft power relationships where there is negotiation between the different levels, which is great for a lot of types of information processing, but isn't very good for highly non-linear patterns that require gestalts that cut across the hierarchy. For a person with this self-organizing principle, a lot of those patterns are not even hard to perceive. They are literally invisible.

Finally, there are people who have sub-agentic structures that work by consensus where they all need to talk to each other, and they're all flat in the hierarchy. They tend to be very vibe-y people because the vibrations are not blocked as they travel through the organism. You don't have a hierarchical system of control that is preventing them from happening. They tend to be highly non-linear, creative people, but they lack the ability to subordinate tasks to themselves, and so oftentimes end up with conscientiousness problems.

Finally, there is a state of superposition of these different self-organizing principles. I suspect that the Buddhist fourth path state is one where there is no center, but there is a hierarchy. In other words, it's a hierarchy where power is never abused because the information flows geometrically within the hierarchy, but there is a hierarchy that can coordinate action, which is almost kind of the ideal state. There might be, however, locations where this is maladaptive, various contexts where this is not ideal.

Ultimately, I believe the specific pathologies and psychological problems of individuals may be traceable to the downsides of different self-organizing principles for sub-agentic structures, and it might be a possible way to intervene and help psychopathology. Most importantly, I think this is very important to develop future politics. So that there isn't a sub-agentic war going on across people because we don't understand each other, but rather we figure out how to make the most out of each self-organizing principle and create a meta system that allows their peaceful coexistence.