I called it an applause light last time because it makes you sound responsible, mature, and Deeply Wise without containing usable advice. I’d retract this if you could give examples of what in particular we should be doing.
If you consider mystical methods unlikely to bear fruit, and worse than a maximum ignorance prior, say it outright and justify it. But I can’t tell if you’re talking only about mystical “techniques” or also about psychological and Bayesian “techniques”, and you think you’re making a positive point instead of a negative one. I just can’t figure out what that positive point is.
Yes, if there’s something we know for sure increases rationality, we should be spending more time doing it instead of brainstorming new techniques. But first, there aren’t many such things, and second, our inability to do them as much as we’d like is the akrasia complaint, which we’ve already flagged as something we need to work on.
Compare alcoholism. The mundane solution to alcoholism is to say “Just stop drinking so much”—this seems in keeping with your diet metaphor. This mundane solution very rarely works, thanks to a particularly nasty form of akrasia. The Alcoholics Anonymous program, various anti-alcoholism drugs, and other “gimmicks” are much more effective. We need techniques for an Irrationalists Anonymous program.
Everyone in the world is already having a lot of mundane experience, and it doesn’t seem to have helped them much. We better do something different...and not just take more baths. Not necessarily some mystical ritual. It could just be learning a little more Bayesian math, studying lists of fallacies, or going to a philosophy class.
If your candidate for “do something different” is “pay more attention to mundane experience”, then you need to define specific ways we can do that. If you literally just mean we should consciously try to elevate the level of mental attention with which we attend to daily tasks, then that’s Zen. Hard Zen. Back during my Zen phase, I used to try this. Even a few minutes were unbearably difficult. It may be a valuable technique, but if it’s really what you mean it needs more respect and rigor than you give it here.
If you want to continue this post as a series, please post some concrete examples of what we should be doing differently.
If your candidate for “do something different” is “pay more attention to mundane experience”, then you need to define specific ways we can do that. If you literally just mean we should consciously try to elevate the level of mental attention with which we attend to daily tasks, then that’s Zen. Hard Zen. Back during my Zen phase, I used to try this. Even a few minutes were unbearably difficult. It may be a valuable technique, but if it’s really what you mean it needs more respect and rigor than you give it here.
For what it’s worth, the bulk of my learning and improvement was from a more limited form of this: specifically, I decided never to force myself to do anything—i.e., never to override my natural impulses in order to get myself to do something. Instead, I vowed to always seek to understand what my resistance consisted of, and change that directly, instead.
That’s a more narrowly-focused approach to studying “mundane experience”, and it gave me immensely greater insight into what procrastination actually is. It also means that over the long haul I’ve spent less and less time fighting myself, and more time with my natural impulses being to do that which is “best” for me in some larger sense.
That having been said, I’ve recently realized that almost all of my work in this area has been focused on fixing “not doing what I should” and almost none of it has been on fixing “doing what I should not”… like, for example, reading and replying to LW comments and losing track of how much time I’m spending on it. ;-) So, I have a new area to begin research in.
Now this, I am interested in. Think you understand enough about how you did what you did to be able to communicate it? That is, to explain more clearly about how to find understanding of my resistances and change them directly?
Observe what your brain is doing before you experience the resistance. In other words, notice what your brain is predicting will happen if you do the thing you’re about to do.
This handout gives an explanation of my “input-belief-prediction-feeling” model and gives some questions that can be useful in identifying the process by which you’re creating resistance.
What I do is establish a “test” condition—something I can think about in relation to the project or task that reliably reproduces the resistance response I’m trying to understand. Then, I can run the test repeatedly and try to see what images or sounds are flashing to my mind (the “prediction”) before the feeling of resistance arises. Once you have the prediction, you can then ask what you must have to believe in order for that (unconscious) prediction to come true.
IOW, our emotions and (de)motivation are driven by unconscious prediction of expected outcomes, to which our body responds with defensive or aggressive postures. And usually the predictions are simply cached thoughts that no longer connect with the rest of your belief system.
When you get enough practical experience with this, you realize that belief system updating is a very hit-or-miss process for human brains. Updates have to be in context of a particular memory trace, and unless that trace is actually shared across your belief system, it’s a one-at-a-time process. Sort of like having a subroutine in code vs. copy/paste—our brains have a lot of “copy/paste”, although there’s also a lot of abstraction. You just never know going in what the effective scope of your changes will be.
We don’t need to get back to basics. We’ve never been to basics. The basics are where we need to begin.
Because here, there’s nothing beyond the basics. There are no more-advanced methods, no clever tricks to make things simpler and easier. There is only the application of the method.
“Yes, if there’s something we know for sure increases rationality, we should be spending more time doing it instead of brainstorming new techniques”
We already know of a something. It is a very basic and rudimentary something, that we are all familiar with, and we all have the capacity to utilize. But most of you aren’t doing it!
This has been discussed at OB repeatedly. We’re carrying a lantern to look for fire.
“Compare alcoholism. The mundane solution to alcoholism is to say “Just stop drinking so much”—this seems in keeping with your diet metaphor. This mundane solution very rarely works, thanks to a particularly nasty form of akrasia. The Alcoholics Anonymous program, various anti-alcoholism drugs, and other “gimmicks” are much more effective.”
Actually, no, they’re not. AA is plagued by dropouts. What it’s good at is getting the people who remain with it to believe it’s helping them and say so. What it’s terrible at is getting people off alcohol.
We already know of a something. It is a very basic and rudimentary something, that we are all familiar with, and we all have the capacity to utilize. But most of you aren’t doing it!
I have no idea what something you are referring to. There are many things we already know about; what are you trying to point to?
Actually, no, they’re not. AA is plagued by dropouts. What it’s good at is getting the people who remain with it to believe it’s helping them and say so. What it’s terrible at is getting people off alcohol.
My interpretation of overall conclusions: Individuals who complete an AA program are not significantly different from those on other treatments. The studies that attempt to randomize treatments show worse results for AA. The two studies that mention adherence rates show AA has more drop-outs.
I called it an applause light last time because it makes you sound responsible, mature, and Deeply Wise without containing usable advice. I’d retract this if you could give examples of what in particular we should be doing.
If you consider mystical methods unlikely to bear fruit, and worse than a maximum ignorance prior, say it outright and justify it. But I can’t tell if you’re talking only about mystical “techniques” or also about psychological and Bayesian “techniques”, and you think you’re making a positive point instead of a negative one. I just can’t figure out what that positive point is.
Yes, if there’s something we know for sure increases rationality, we should be spending more time doing it instead of brainstorming new techniques. But first, there aren’t many such things, and second, our inability to do them as much as we’d like is the akrasia complaint, which we’ve already flagged as something we need to work on.
Compare alcoholism. The mundane solution to alcoholism is to say “Just stop drinking so much”—this seems in keeping with your diet metaphor. This mundane solution very rarely works, thanks to a particularly nasty form of akrasia. The Alcoholics Anonymous program, various anti-alcoholism drugs, and other “gimmicks” are much more effective. We need techniques for an Irrationalists Anonymous program.
Everyone in the world is already having a lot of mundane experience, and it doesn’t seem to have helped them much. We better do something different...and not just take more baths. Not necessarily some mystical ritual. It could just be learning a little more Bayesian math, studying lists of fallacies, or going to a philosophy class.
If your candidate for “do something different” is “pay more attention to mundane experience”, then you need to define specific ways we can do that. If you literally just mean we should consciously try to elevate the level of mental attention with which we attend to daily tasks, then that’s Zen. Hard Zen. Back during my Zen phase, I used to try this. Even a few minutes were unbearably difficult. It may be a valuable technique, but if it’s really what you mean it needs more respect and rigor than you give it here.
If you want to continue this post as a series, please post some concrete examples of what we should be doing differently.
For what it’s worth, the bulk of my learning and improvement was from a more limited form of this: specifically, I decided never to force myself to do anything—i.e., never to override my natural impulses in order to get myself to do something. Instead, I vowed to always seek to understand what my resistance consisted of, and change that directly, instead.
That’s a more narrowly-focused approach to studying “mundane experience”, and it gave me immensely greater insight into what procrastination actually is. It also means that over the long haul I’ve spent less and less time fighting myself, and more time with my natural impulses being to do that which is “best” for me in some larger sense.
That having been said, I’ve recently realized that almost all of my work in this area has been focused on fixing “not doing what I should” and almost none of it has been on fixing “doing what I should not”… like, for example, reading and replying to LW comments and losing track of how much time I’m spending on it. ;-) So, I have a new area to begin research in.
Now this, I am interested in. Think you understand enough about how you did what you did to be able to communicate it? That is, to explain more clearly about how to find understanding of my resistances and change them directly?
Thanks.
Observe what your brain is doing before you experience the resistance. In other words, notice what your brain is predicting will happen if you do the thing you’re about to do.
This handout gives an explanation of my “input-belief-prediction-feeling” model and gives some questions that can be useful in identifying the process by which you’re creating resistance.
What I do is establish a “test” condition—something I can think about in relation to the project or task that reliably reproduces the resistance response I’m trying to understand. Then, I can run the test repeatedly and try to see what images or sounds are flashing to my mind (the “prediction”) before the feeling of resistance arises. Once you have the prediction, you can then ask what you must have to believe in order for that (unconscious) prediction to come true.
IOW, our emotions and (de)motivation are driven by unconscious prediction of expected outcomes, to which our body responds with defensive or aggressive postures. And usually the predictions are simply cached thoughts that no longer connect with the rest of your belief system.
When you get enough practical experience with this, you realize that belief system updating is a very hit-or-miss process for human brains. Updates have to be in context of a particular memory trace, and unless that trace is actually shared across your belief system, it’s a one-at-a-time process. Sort of like having a subroutine in code vs. copy/paste—our brains have a lot of “copy/paste”, although there’s also a lot of abstraction. You just never know going in what the effective scope of your changes will be.
The name of this applause light is “We need to get back to basics”.
Actually, the whole point of LW is that we need to move on from basics and progress further.
We don’t need to get back to basics. We’ve never been to basics. The basics are where we need to begin.
Because here, there’s nothing beyond the basics. There are no more-advanced methods, no clever tricks to make things simpler and easier. There is only the application of the method.
It must say something about the Karma system that the most frequently and most significantly downvoted poster is at No. 3 on the top posters list.
“Yes, if there’s something we know for sure increases rationality, we should be spending more time doing it instead of brainstorming new techniques”
We already know of a something. It is a very basic and rudimentary something, that we are all familiar with, and we all have the capacity to utilize. But most of you aren’t doing it!
This has been discussed at OB repeatedly. We’re carrying a lantern to look for fire.
“Compare alcoholism. The mundane solution to alcoholism is to say “Just stop drinking so much”—this seems in keeping with your diet metaphor. This mundane solution very rarely works, thanks to a particularly nasty form of akrasia. The Alcoholics Anonymous program, various anti-alcoholism drugs, and other “gimmicks” are much more effective.”
Actually, no, they’re not. AA is plagued by dropouts. What it’s good at is getting the people who remain with it to believe it’s helping them and say so. What it’s terrible at is getting people off alcohol.
I have no idea what something you are referring to. There are many things we already know about; what are you trying to point to?
After over two years, it’s unlikely he or she will read this comment.
This?
It must say something about the Karma system that the most frequently and most significantly downvoted poster is at No. 3 on the top posters list.
Evidence?
Summary of ~12 studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous
My interpretation of overall conclusions: Individuals who complete an AA program are not significantly different from those on other treatments. The studies that attempt to randomize treatments show worse results for AA. The two studies that mention adherence rates show AA has more drop-outs.
Best meta-study I could find: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2648497
Conclusion: AA is not significantly different other treatments.
Penn and Teller
I’ll let you judge the reliability of the evidence. However, true or not, you may be entertained. You have been warned.
Edit: some hard(er) data 1 min 50 sec into part 3
It must say something about the Karma system that the most frequently and most significantly downvoted poster is at No. 3 on the top posters list.