Yes, I am very familiar with this kind of experience. I think the point about singular epiphanies of this sort is that they are always too brittle and inflexible to carry you on in any meaningful, long-term sort of way. Two further comments:
The realization of “epiphany addiction” it itself a sort of epiphany, in the same sense that this discussion is talking about. I’m not sure what the punchline of -that- should be, except maybe to say, there doesn’t seem to ever be any such “magic bullets” in terms of personal understanding … . Yes, this may seem strange.
This whole idea and discussion draw to mind some closely related ideas from eastern (buddhistic) philosophy and thinking, which considers in detail the process of self-growth (ideally, samadhi) by means of self-consideration (generally, meditation). Within those lines of thought, there seems to be a general emphasis on this point in terms of attachment and detachment fallacies; the human being naturally tends to attach to certain dogmas, beliefs, fears, etc. always forgetting the fact that such things are not really real in the same sense that objective reality is real. Thus they are largely illusionary and fallacious in nature. I think a buddhist might probably look at this article and say, “oh, yes I agree,” and then promptly forget all about it.
they are always too brittle and inflexible to carry you on in any meaningful, long-term sort of way.
What you need to do is to capture it, then use it to help you take the next step; then keep taking those next steps.
The very first thing you need to do is to STOP reading, write down whatever caused your epiphany, and think about the next step. Too much of the self-help and popular psychological literature are written like stories, which, while make them more readable and more likely to be read, tends to encourage readers to keep on reading through it all. If you are reading for change, you need to read it like a textbook, for the information, rather than entertainment.
Too much of the self-help and popular psychological literature are written like stories, which, while make them more readable and more likely to be read, tends to encourage readers to keep on reading through it all. If you are reading for change, you need to read it like a textbook, for the information, rather than entertainment.
This is why most of the successful self-help gurus pack their books full of stories and insights, but leave the actual training for in-person workshops, or at least for higher-bandwidth or interactive media. Most of the challenges people will have in applying almost anything can’t be listed in a book, without creating an unreadable (or at least unsellable) book.
While this is also the most financially beneficial way to do it, I have personally observed over and over that there are certain classes of mental mistake that you simply CANNOT reliably correct in non-interactive media, because the person making the mistake simply can’t tell they’re making the mistake unless you point out an example of it in their own behavior or thinking. Otherwise, the connection between the pattern of mistake and the instance of it remains opaque to them. People are much better at pattern-matching cognitive errors in other people than they are in themselves.
A few chapters in, each book said “The most important thing is that you put down this book right now and go practice the thing I just told you to do.” But I just kept reading, because I was learning so much, and having all those epiphanies felt like getting stronger.
I can’t think of any combination of symbols placed on paper that would have bypassed Luke’s filters here… and a few years back, I spent one hell of a lot longer time than five minutes trying with all my might to think of one!
Essentially, this means that a properly consequentialist self-help author who wishes to do the most good for the most people is pretty much required to write their book in such a way that it functions as a huge commercial to get people into some sort of higher-bandwidth communication channel where the real learning can take place. (Much the way that HP:MOR can be considered a huge commercial for CFAR, despite the strong informational content.)
Ideally, there will also be plenty enough practical information that more independent thinkers will be able to apply on their own; but it’s not at all realistic to assume that an “information only” textbook presentation will result in any actual follow-through from most people.
I have personally observed over and over that there are certain classes of mental mistake that you simply CANNOT reliably correct in non-interactive media, because the person making the mistake simply can’t tell they’re making the mistake unless you point out an example of it in their own behavior or thinking.
I know I don’t really get a given cognitive bias unless I can think of an example of me doing it and feel stupid at the realisation. (I have previously generalised from myself on this point, but I’ll try to refrain from that.)
Maybe the combination of symbols could tell Luke to do some trivially easy thing, then ramp up the difficulty.
Maybe you should ask Luke whether he thinks that would have worked.
My guess is, that’s exactly what the books he read, actually did.
Really, asking someone in that state to even stop reading long enough to answer some questions mentally, even without writing them down, is not going to work. You might be able to get some hurried answers, but not much deep thought. They’re too excited about what else they might “learn” next.
I even know one guru who continually emphasizes how “it’s not learning until your behavior changes”… and seen his audiences dutifully nod and write down this Great Insight… and then patiently wait for the next insight to be spoon-fed. ;-)
Actually, that particular guru is an interesting case in point: I found attending his workshops in person to be valuable, because they’re structured in such a way that they more or less force you to actually do the written exercises, because two minutes later you’re going to be showing your work to another audience member.
However, despite knowing that his exercises are valuable, I still find it difficult to make myself do them when merely watching a recording of one of his workshops. Either the recording seems too boring to pay attention in the first place, or the exercise seems boring compared to skipping forward to the next insight. I’m much more likely to skim quickly through the exercise in my head, and not write anything down, while convincing myself that I’ll definitely get to it later.
But in person, there’s nothing else to do but write something down, right then. Apparently, spending money on a conference, hotel, and airfare, plus blocking out the time away, equals a very effective precommitment device… one that books and recordings just can’t match.
Yes, I am very familiar with this kind of experience. I think the point about singular epiphanies of this sort is that they are always too brittle and inflexible to carry you on in any meaningful, long-term sort of way. Two further comments:
The realization of “epiphany addiction” it itself a sort of epiphany, in the same sense that this discussion is talking about. I’m not sure what the punchline of -that- should be, except maybe to say, there doesn’t seem to ever be any such “magic bullets” in terms of personal understanding … . Yes, this may seem strange.
This whole idea and discussion draw to mind some closely related ideas from eastern (buddhistic) philosophy and thinking, which considers in detail the process of self-growth (ideally, samadhi) by means of self-consideration (generally, meditation). Within those lines of thought, there seems to be a general emphasis on this point in terms of attachment and detachment fallacies; the human being naturally tends to attach to certain dogmas, beliefs, fears, etc. always forgetting the fact that such things are not really real in the same sense that objective reality is real. Thus they are largely illusionary and fallacious in nature. I think a buddhist might probably look at this article and say, “oh, yes I agree,” and then promptly forget all about it.
What you need to do is to capture it, then use it to help you take the next step; then keep taking those next steps.
The very first thing you need to do is to STOP reading, write down whatever caused your epiphany, and think about the next step. Too much of the self-help and popular psychological literature are written like stories, which, while make them more readable and more likely to be read, tends to encourage readers to keep on reading through it all. If you are reading for change, you need to read it like a textbook, for the information, rather than entertainment.
This is why most of the successful self-help gurus pack their books full of stories and insights, but leave the actual training for in-person workshops, or at least for higher-bandwidth or interactive media. Most of the challenges people will have in applying almost anything can’t be listed in a book, without creating an unreadable (or at least unsellable) book.
While this is also the most financially beneficial way to do it, I have personally observed over and over that there are certain classes of mental mistake that you simply CANNOT reliably correct in non-interactive media, because the person making the mistake simply can’t tell they’re making the mistake unless you point out an example of it in their own behavior or thinking. Otherwise, the connection between the pattern of mistake and the instance of it remains opaque to them. People are much better at pattern-matching cognitive errors in other people than they are in themselves.
See, for example, lukeprog’s comment, wherein he wrote:
I can’t think of any combination of symbols placed on paper that would have bypassed Luke’s filters here… and a few years back, I spent one hell of a lot longer time than five minutes trying with all my might to think of one!
Essentially, this means that a properly consequentialist self-help author who wishes to do the most good for the most people is pretty much required to write their book in such a way that it functions as a huge commercial to get people into some sort of higher-bandwidth communication channel where the real learning can take place. (Much the way that HP:MOR can be considered a huge commercial for CFAR, despite the strong informational content.)
Ideally, there will also be plenty enough practical information that more independent thinkers will be able to apply on their own; but it’s not at all realistic to assume that an “information only” textbook presentation will result in any actual follow-through from most people.
I know I don’t really get a given cognitive bias unless I can think of an example of me doing it and feel stupid at the realisation. (I have previously generalised from myself on this point, but I’ll try to refrain from that.)
Maybe the combination of symbols could tell Luke to do some trivially easy thing, then ramp up the difficulty.
Maybe you should ask Luke whether he thinks that would have worked.
My guess is, that’s exactly what the books he read, actually did.
Really, asking someone in that state to even stop reading long enough to answer some questions mentally, even without writing them down, is not going to work. You might be able to get some hurried answers, but not much deep thought. They’re too excited about what else they might “learn” next.
I even know one guru who continually emphasizes how “it’s not learning until your behavior changes”… and seen his audiences dutifully nod and write down this Great Insight… and then patiently wait for the next insight to be spoon-fed. ;-)
Actually, that particular guru is an interesting case in point: I found attending his workshops in person to be valuable, because they’re structured in such a way that they more or less force you to actually do the written exercises, because two minutes later you’re going to be showing your work to another audience member.
However, despite knowing that his exercises are valuable, I still find it difficult to make myself do them when merely watching a recording of one of his workshops. Either the recording seems too boring to pay attention in the first place, or the exercise seems boring compared to skipping forward to the next insight. I’m much more likely to skim quickly through the exercise in my head, and not write anything down, while convincing myself that I’ll definitely get to it later.
But in person, there’s nothing else to do but write something down, right then. Apparently, spending money on a conference, hotel, and airfare, plus blocking out the time away, equals a very effective precommitment device… one that books and recordings just can’t match.