Claim#1: Yes, the “hidden function of problems” is an important concept. But it is something that a person must apply to themselves, because when applied by someone else it can easily become a tool of abuse.
First, because the other person does not have an access to my internal model, to my actual feelings associated with the problem, so it may be tempting for them to just follow their own beliefs about me, and insist that this is the actual hidden function that I am in denial about, even when they are wrong.
Second, because this is all about interactions with people, and maybe the person trying to “psychoanalyze” me is exactly the source of the problem, such as the hidden function may be to avoid a potential conflict with them, and then their attempts to figure out the hidden function would only make it worse. Especially when they are in a position of power, such as parent or boss. Which is exactly when they would be tempted to “fix” me.
So I expect that the strong negative reaction some people have to this concept is fundamentally their fear that someone else would try to turn this concept against them. (So on the meta level, the hidden function of denying that there is such a thing as “hidden function of problems” is to protect yourself against unwanted intervention.)
Claim#2: This feels like standard biology denial. I agree that many problems are fundamentally interpersonal, but there is also such thing as people having character traits. This may be a good method to get rid of some social phobias, etc. But taking the claim literally, this method would also cure autism etc., which is nonsense.
Claim#3: Yes, there is such thing as a self-fulfilling negative prophecy; believing that you won’t succeed can prevent you from trying, in which case indeed you won’t succeed. Question is, how much do positive self-fulfilling prophecies work? Believing that you’ll succeed will make you try, maybe even try your best. Then there is an empirical question whether your best is good enough.
Also, for a rationalist, choosing to believe something that may contradict my reason is problematic. Perhaps rationalists would benefit from some special form of the positive prophecy, something like: “I believe that if I try my best, the results will exceed my current aliefs”—without making statement about whether “exceeding my current aliefs” is enough to succeed at my original goal. (For example, I believe that if I try my best, I can improve in writing blog articles, so that I will be much more productive, and the articles will be popular. I am not commenting on the part whether that would be enough to generate a solid income, because that part is beyond my control. My emotional approach should be that I am doing it to entertain myself, regardless of the outcome.)
Puzzingly, the book doesn’t apply the mindset of teleology to the absence of someone’s willingness to grow. (You’ll notice this is a trend in the book.)
My first guess would be, maybe the person is (or believes to be, perhaps incorrectly) in a position where actually improving would be bad for them? Maybe their current environment rewards weakness and punishes strength? Like, as long as you have a problem, you can avoid some duties, some people are extra nice to you. If you become stronger, you will have to do your part of the duties, you will be expected to help others; if you improve too much, some people may get jealous and try to hurt you, your improvement may be perceived as a status attack. In other words, the marginal tax on your improvement may exceed 100%. (Maybe there are more people in this kind of situation than we would expect?)
Claim#4: I generally agree, but it also gives me some “spherical cow” vibes.
These limits reveal that there are natural boundaries that separate where my “tasks” end and yours begin.
If two people live in the same house, whose natural task is it to vacuum the room?
Claim#5: I guess what you said here is similar to my objection to the previous claim. Yes, it is difficult to be “an autonomous adult in a healthy relationship”, when you need something. (Ultimately, we all need resources in order to survive.)
Claim#6: Full agreement here.
Claim#7: I think it is easy to be fully in the present, if you have no worries about the future; if you have a reason to believe that your problems are going to be solved.
Improvement#1: I agree that such book would be better. No strong opinion but mild skepticism on whether it is possible to write a book that would give proper emotional understanding to different kinds of people.
Improvement#2: Sounds interesting!
Improvement#3: I don’t think the incentives on the book market are aligned with this. Long before you test a book, someone else’s book probably becomes the classic. And most readers probably don’t care, unless your audience is the rationalist community.
Commenting as I read...
Claim#1: Yes, the “hidden function of problems” is an important concept. But it is something that a person must apply to themselves, because when applied by someone else it can easily become a tool of abuse.
First, because the other person does not have an access to my internal model, to my actual feelings associated with the problem, so it may be tempting for them to just follow their own beliefs about me, and insist that this is the actual hidden function that I am in denial about, even when they are wrong.
Second, because this is all about interactions with people, and maybe the person trying to “psychoanalyze” me is exactly the source of the problem, such as the hidden function may be to avoid a potential conflict with them, and then their attempts to figure out the hidden function would only make it worse. Especially when they are in a position of power, such as parent or boss. Which is exactly when they would be tempted to “fix” me.
So I expect that the strong negative reaction some people have to this concept is fundamentally their fear that someone else would try to turn this concept against them. (So on the meta level, the hidden function of denying that there is such a thing as “hidden function of problems” is to protect yourself against unwanted intervention.)
Claim#2: This feels like standard biology denial. I agree that many problems are fundamentally interpersonal, but there is also such thing as people having character traits. This may be a good method to get rid of some social phobias, etc. But taking the claim literally, this method would also cure autism etc., which is nonsense.
Claim#3: Yes, there is such thing as a self-fulfilling negative prophecy; believing that you won’t succeed can prevent you from trying, in which case indeed you won’t succeed. Question is, how much do positive self-fulfilling prophecies work? Believing that you’ll succeed will make you try, maybe even try your best. Then there is an empirical question whether your best is good enough.
Also, for a rationalist, choosing to believe something that may contradict my reason is problematic. Perhaps rationalists would benefit from some special form of the positive prophecy, something like: “I believe that if I try my best, the results will exceed my current aliefs”—without making statement about whether “exceeding my current aliefs” is enough to succeed at my original goal. (For example, I believe that if I try my best, I can improve in writing blog articles, so that I will be much more productive, and the articles will be popular. I am not commenting on the part whether that would be enough to generate a solid income, because that part is beyond my control. My emotional approach should be that I am doing it to entertain myself, regardless of the outcome.)
My first guess would be, maybe the person is (or believes to be, perhaps incorrectly) in a position where actually improving would be bad for them? Maybe their current environment rewards weakness and punishes strength? Like, as long as you have a problem, you can avoid some duties, some people are extra nice to you. If you become stronger, you will have to do your part of the duties, you will be expected to help others; if you improve too much, some people may get jealous and try to hurt you, your improvement may be perceived as a status attack. In other words, the marginal tax on your improvement may exceed 100%. (Maybe there are more people in this kind of situation than we would expect?)
Claim#4: I generally agree, but it also gives me some “spherical cow” vibes.
If two people live in the same house, whose natural task is it to vacuum the room?
Claim#5: I guess what you said here is similar to my objection to the previous claim. Yes, it is difficult to be “an autonomous adult in a healthy relationship”, when you need something. (Ultimately, we all need resources in order to survive.)
Claim#6: Full agreement here.
Claim#7: I think it is easy to be fully in the present, if you have no worries about the future; if you have a reason to believe that your problems are going to be solved.
Improvement#1: I agree that such book would be better. No strong opinion but mild skepticism on whether it is possible to write a book that would give proper emotional understanding to different kinds of people.
Improvement#2: Sounds interesting!
Improvement#3: I don’t think the incentives on the book market are aligned with this. Long before you test a book, someone else’s book probably becomes the classic. And most readers probably don’t care, unless your audience is the rationalist community.