A response to the 7 levels of becoming sentient:

Your experience as a child describe similar circumstances to my own. I was raised in a rather strict and hierarchical religion, but said religion (on offshoot of Christianity) definitely has a lot more lore than its peers and tried to answer questions that most did not. Nonetheless, at a young age, a lot of what I was taught set off red flags of logical inconsistency that I guess not everyone has (I even catch myself being logically inconsistent on occasion). You can imagine that my line of questioning at that age of authority figures and their positions did not get me invited to many parties. I would not have gone anyways.
This description, is, again, very pertinent to my own experience. I, too, believed that a bunch of adults had access to info I was not privy to which would explain away their odd behaviors. I used to think that everyone knew what they were doing. Needless to say, this turned out not to be true. In Socratic terms, most people, are not living the examined life. They exist without needing adequate answers to deeper questions. Their curiosity tends to be limited in scope, and they tend to think that they are correct.
My equivalent epiphany came during a marriage I was once in. Sure I was not valued for what I had to offer in most areas (with the exception of obscure information that helped someone achieve a tangible goal), and this fact held true even with the person who was supposed to have strong feelings for me. I was able to parse out what was wrong with the system, but to actually do something to change things would involve acting against fear, and many are not equipped to do that. I tried in vain to convince others of the conclusions I had reached, but they did not care as much as I did. "Why should I learn something if it doesn't make me money?" was what she said. Many others feel the same. I put my head down and entered a period of intellectual stagnation. Some questions were still there, but I focused on the mundane aspects of simple subsistence. I was a shell.
Your observations about people acting out of fear and greed (which is perhaps, at its core an extension of fear since one would likely have to care about death to justify hoarding, unless it is an addictive hedonistic response), are things that, I too, have noticed. To put it in MBTI terminology, that is where the shadow self tended to rear the most in certain rants when things that had been bottled up came to the surface at once. I did identify the root of this frustration as emanating from the adoption of an ethical framework and the failure of the framework to be met by most. A mosquito is simply trying to survive, greedy as it may be. While its actions may be harmful, ranting against it will do no good unless one can convince others of the problems with mosquitoes and how it threatens the ability of others to succeed in their own pursuits of greed (paradox, much?)
Again, relatable. I would get into discussions about things and would be told that I was making people uncomfortable, this despite not railing against them directly. Now I have few social contacts left. The more you pursue uncomfortable truths, the more people tend to find you uncomfortable, I suppose. Oh well. I have some people left, but it seems our penchant is for filtering people out of life, not bringing them in. Cult leaders kind of need to do the latter.
I've been, admittedly, a bit sloppy in my approach here in regards to formal logic. I've probably even contradicted myself. However, I would very much be interested in formal logic and debate. This does take a great deal of practice though, even for INTPs, because we are not used to communicating with others in the manner of premise, premise, premise, conclusion. Usually we color our language up a bit. I would say, that there is ambiguity in coloring, however, in an arena where precision should be sought. So, while I am here, I will attempt to reform. I was Socratic at the very beginning, because that is generally more thought-provoking and avoids triggering the defense mechanisms of the interlocutor. I'll poke in and discuss things with you in this manner if you would like. Just point me to a topic you have a particular interest in, and I will engage. There are a lot of topics here.
Ah, well, yes. On this point of personal discovery being a necessary component of avoiding ejection from conversation, this is why the Socratic method can be effective, as well as directing people to information (as has been done with me). If one is truly seeking objectivity and the ever-elusive truth, one cannot be stuck to one way of thinking. There are other methods than the Socratic that can be used to tease apart the truth, and sometimes that method gets boring anyways.

RESPONDING TO THIS:
https://logiczombie.substack.com/p/7-levels-of-intp