I saw a report about the power of intention. I come to see intention as a process which is mostly guided by the body. Of course there is also intention so far we have our mind in mind. The report was about being not so stressed by complexes or complexities which are not of use in the little steps we make in our lives. Most of all it is about feeling (good) I think. It is seeing the world as a less clearly demanding place. So that seeing things becomes possible as an act of love. Of course this is true, so far that a world of competition and pressure would only make you unnecessarily worried over certain things that aren't not so certain as a fact.
Later on, I agonized about an old post of mine. It is called reification. I was thinking this with what I learned out of this report. If there is such a thing as a conceptual archetype. Which is grounded in our minds, and which can be different across other types of people. This would be responsible for the creation of prototypes (which are regarded very important in our cognition) via abilities. An archetype, which is not necessarily deviated from Carl Gustav Jung, says something about how we think and imagine. How we feel, how we come to meaning and judgment. If this is true there should be certain distinctions. Like female psychology and male psychology. These are personality traits. Also abilities could be responsible for an other approach towards prototypes. Prototypes can differ, from person to person, and from culture to culture, ... It is the salience and the characterization which is important. But since the profile is not dependent of the content of it, there should be a sort of mentalism showing effect. A mentalism which is in association with personality and its structure (also the interaction and exploration of the world, of course). Since people are different in their approach to deal with a certain task. There are maybe levels and differences in how they come to a solution. What is of interest is the distribution. Basically, the mean is determined by high and low ends. But this is not interesting. To be collectively intelligent, the mean has to be determined by the same process which is of value at different levels. High intelligence means better adaptation. Low intelligence means worse adaptation. If this is the construct there would be more different ideas at the side of low intelligent people which makes the prototype more diverse. High adaption means conservative choice. Which is good, but gives no collective intelligent decisions. Since diversity is very important as a concept in self-organization, this means that when the group is big enough there will be a contra-intuitive gain. Which cognitive structure is responsible here fore is a mystery. Negativity (or the use of difference) is the basis of logic as well. Also there is such a thing as optimism biases. I don't see the point how this would translate into mathematical measures. There must be some dichotomy which is striking.