the reason for commenting is that I liked this post, and therefore I tried to look for something useful to add. The following is the argument, that without applying the same approach to our current worldview, we will probably fall prey to many of the traps the policy approach tries to avoid.
Moreover, as I want to apply it on my inner self, I am treating the conclusions I have made a priori, as a separate worldview.
I am using Erik Eriksons 8 Stages of Psychosocial development model loosely to construe examples, but it isn’t that important. The main idea is still that during development, even from genetic heritage, we make/come with a lot of presumptions. And so we have already integrated multiple perspectives, but it might not have been very conscious, and therefore possibly not the best approach going forward.
Here is a simplefied example of what I am talking about:
Lets say you were afraid of snakes growing up. In adolescence you were in a culture that was very positive of snakes, and so as not to be seen as weak or different, you decided to force yourself to overcome it—and you chose to do so by staying with snakes until you didn’t feel ‘fear’ anymore. As you noticed other, smaller ‘fears’ in yourself, which you believed were phobias, you used this approach continuously—and it made you feel strong, and you got positive social feedback.
Since you are evaluationg ‘track record’ and advice, this might look good, but this case and probably many others, it might be easy to fall victim to the illusion this inner part has created, advice like it is good to face your fears/phobias till the are conquered. But, if we look at it closely, what is the logic under which this advice is created? - It is To fit in with my peers.
Now we might have invested a lot of energy into this advice, and have done it for years—even urged others to do it as well, and consequently built up vested interest in it being so. Therefore, if you do not pay attention, you might decide to give this worldview a default say when it comes to feelings related to fear. The worldview itself, however, is actually fundamentally interested in fitting in with one’s peers, but for it to work one you do not need to know the inherent logic of the worldview it was made in. It would still be helpful, but rarely clear cut.
So, when going through the process, when you come across things in your life you have already evaluated, you add it to the process without weighing it neutrally. This, in turn, has disrupting effects for evaluating strategies and decision-making, because it confuses cause and effect, and true area of decision-interest for the illusion of interest. This differentce might lead to some subtle changes in the end-result as well.
Here is a simple use of your model, adding the conclusions you already have, seperately:
1. «Conquering my fears/phobias is good advice, and it has a good track record (10 less phobias, less stress etc. so far)»
Even though the former looks fine on the surface, I will have to thread carefully. If I do not know the worldview it comes from, even more so. Do I have any other beliefs about fear/phobias that might be useful or legitimate, but got discarded along the way? Could they, if given some time and effort, be better/complementing to my current belief?
2. «Conquering fears is a part of my identity, and I feel strong and get positive reactions socially. Therefore I care about any and all aspects where fear is related».
These two sentences look related, but does sentence A give sentence B? There are many other options. Since it seems like I have a vested interest (Part of my identity) in this view, I should be extra discerning. Furthermore, I might have suppressed other worldviews’ viewpoints regarding fear—and will have to look closely for any other beliefs regarding the area of fear that are valid.
The third point is the most interesting one, but also the most complex. The example I have used so far can be used as a part of the overall strategy.
Lets say you are planning on moving in with a SO. One part of the equation is that you fear you will lose parts of your autonomy.
Adding in all the former points, this is what it would look like: A little sidenote: *Conquering fear in this case can look very differently. Since we are cheating, by knowing the origin, we would try to fit in. So, instead of trying to fight for our autonomy, we might just get it over with and get used to having less. Giving it up till we do not fear it anymore.*
So, since the relationship is important, this belief is loudly suggesting you should use it. Give up your autonomy, till your fear is gone.
However, since you have isolated this as just one worldview’s belief, your search for a different/discarded view has yielded the following: «Allowing and expressing fear can foster a closer bond in close relationships.» You have found some evidence for this as well.
The conquering fears strategy is interested in anything regarding fear, and as this is a new and also relational fear, it is making it clear that it wants to have the say.
The belief that allowing and expressing fear can foster a closer bond in close relationships, does also have an interest in the area of fear. Since the other has vested interest however, this new belief does not shout, it whispers. Since you are aware, you try to listen as best you can.
So, what to do now. That is not easy, and beyond the scope of my comment, to answer. Moreover, even though you add this extra precaution, we usually are blind to our blindspots—but at least you are trying to find some.
I also wanted to thank you for sharing this, and putting in all the work. It is a small node in a growing cluster of nodes concerned with Rationality and Epistemology.
Hi Richard,
the reason for commenting is that I liked this post, and therefore I tried to look for something useful to add. The following is the argument, that without applying the same approach to our current worldview, we will probably fall prey to many of the traps the policy approach tries to avoid.
Moreover, as I want to apply it on my inner self, I am treating the conclusions I have made a priori, as a separate worldview.
I am using Erik Eriksons 8 Stages of Psychosocial development model loosely to construe examples, but it isn’t that important. The main idea is still that during development, even from genetic heritage, we make/come with a lot of presumptions. And so we have already integrated multiple perspectives, but it might not have been very conscious, and therefore possibly not the best approach going forward.
Here is a simplefied example of what I am talking about:
Lets say you were afraid of snakes growing up. In adolescence you were in a culture that was very positive of snakes, and so as not to be seen as weak or different, you decided to force yourself to overcome it—and you chose to do so by staying with snakes until you didn’t feel ‘fear’ anymore. As you noticed other, smaller ‘fears’ in yourself, which you believed were phobias, you used this approach continuously—and it made you feel strong, and you got positive social feedback.
Since you are evaluationg ‘track record’ and advice, this might look good, but this case and probably many others, it might be easy to fall victim to the illusion this inner part has created, advice like it is good to face your fears/phobias till the are conquered. But, if we look at it closely, what is the logic under which this advice is created? - It is To fit in with my peers.
Now we might have invested a lot of energy into this advice, and have done it for years—even urged others to do it as well, and consequently built up vested interest in it being so. Therefore, if you do not pay attention, you might decide to give this worldview a default say when it comes to feelings related to fear. The worldview itself, however, is actually fundamentally interested in fitting in with one’s peers, but for it to work one you do not need to know the inherent logic of the worldview it was made in. It would still be helpful, but rarely clear cut.
So, when going through the process, when you come across things in your life you have already evaluated, you add it to the process without weighing it neutrally. This, in turn, has disrupting effects for evaluating strategies and decision-making, because it confuses cause and effect, and true area of decision-interest for the illusion of interest. This differentce might lead to some subtle changes in the end-result as well.
Here is a simple use of your model, adding the conclusions you already have, seperately:
1. «Conquering my fears/phobias is good advice, and it has a good track record (10 less phobias, less stress etc. so far)»
Even though the former looks fine on the surface, I will have to thread carefully. If I do not know the worldview it comes from, even more so. Do I have any other beliefs about fear/phobias that might be useful or legitimate, but got discarded along the way? Could they, if given some time and effort, be better/complementing to my current belief?
2. «Conquering fears is a part of my identity, and I feel strong and get positive reactions socially. Therefore I care about any and all aspects where fear is related».
These two sentences look related, but does sentence A give sentence B? There are many other options. Since it seems like I have a vested interest (Part of my identity) in this view, I should be extra discerning. Furthermore, I might have suppressed other worldviews’ viewpoints regarding fear—and will have to look closely for any other beliefs regarding the area of fear that are valid.
The third point is the most interesting one, but also the most complex. The example I have used so far can be used as a part of the overall strategy.
Lets say you are planning on moving in with a SO. One part of the equation is that you fear you will lose parts of your autonomy.
Adding in all the former points, this is what it would look like:
A little sidenote:
*Conquering fear in this case can look very differently. Since we are cheating, by knowing the origin, we would try to fit in. So, instead of trying to fight for our autonomy, we might just get it over with and get used to having less. Giving it up till we do not fear it anymore.*
So, since the relationship is important, this belief is loudly suggesting you should use it. Give up your autonomy, till your fear is gone.
However, since you have isolated this as just one worldview’s belief, your search for a different/discarded view has yielded the following: «Allowing and expressing fear can foster a closer bond in close relationships.» You have found some evidence for this as well.
The conquering fears strategy is interested in anything regarding fear, and as this is a new and also relational fear, it is making it clear that it wants to have the say.
The belief that allowing and expressing fear can foster a closer bond in close relationships, does also have an interest in the area of fear. Since the other has vested interest however, this new belief does not shout, it whispers. Since you are aware, you try to listen as best you can.
So, what to do now. That is not easy, and beyond the scope of my comment, to answer. Moreover, even though you add this extra precaution, we usually are blind to our blindspots—but at least you are trying to find some.
I also wanted to thank you for sharing this, and putting in all the work. It is a small node in a growing cluster of nodes concerned with Rationality and Epistemology.