And furthermore I basically buy the claim that if you’re not freaked out by our civilization then you don’t understand it.
There’s probably a version of this sentence that I’d be sympathetic to (e.g. maybe “almost everyone’s emotional security relies on implicit assumptions about how competent civilization is, which are false”). But in general I am pretty opposed to claims which imply that there is one correct emotional reaction to understanding a given situation. I think it’s an important component of rationality to notice when judgments smuggle in implicit standards (as per my recent post), which this is an example of.
Having said that, it’s also an important component of rationality to not reason your way out of ever being freaked out. If the audience reading this weren’t LWers, then I probably wouldn’t have bothered pushing back, since I think something like my rephrasing above is true for many people, which implies that a better understanding would make them freak out more. But I think that LWers in particular are more often making the opposite mistake, of assuming that there’s one correct emotional reaction.
Having said that, it’s also an important component of rationality to not reason your way out of ever being freaked out.
Sorry, I’m getting confused and I don’t understand this sentence. Are you literally saying that you can’t reason out of being afraid? Because this would be a terrible guideline, for many reasons.
There’s probably a version of this sentence that I’d be sympathetic to (e.g. maybe “almost everyone’s emotional security relies on implicit assumptions about how competent civilization is, which are false”). But in general I am pretty opposed to claims which imply that there is one correct emotional reaction to understanding a given situation. I think it’s an important component of rationality to notice when judgments smuggle in implicit standards (as per my recent post), which this is an example of.
Having said that, it’s also an important component of rationality to not reason your way out of ever being freaked out. If the audience reading this weren’t LWers, then I probably wouldn’t have bothered pushing back, since I think something like my rephrasing above is true for many people, which implies that a better understanding would make them freak out more. But I think that LWers in particular are more often making the opposite mistake, of assuming that there’s one correct emotional reaction.
Your suggested sentence is basically what I had in mind.
Sorry, I’m getting confused and I don’t understand this sentence. Are you literally saying that you can’t reason out of being afraid? Because this would be a terrible guideline, for many reasons.