I thought I’d add a few quick notes as the author.
As I reread this, a few things jump out for me:
I enjoy its writing style. Its clarity is probably part of why it was nominated.
I’d now say this post is making a couple of distinct claims:
External forces can shape what we want to do. (I.e., there are lotuses.)
It’s possible to notice this in real time. (I.e., you can notice the taste of lotuses.)
It’s good to do so. Otherwise we find our wanting aligned with others’ goals regardless of how they relate to our own.
If you notice this, you’ll find yourself wanting to spit out lotuses that you can tell pull you away from your goals.
I still basically agree with the content.
I think the emotional undertone is a little confused, says the version of me about 19 months later.
That last point is probably the most interesting to meta-reviewers, so I’ll say a little about that here.
The basic emotional backdrop I brought in writing this was something like, “Look out, you could get hijacked! Better watch out!” And then luckily there’s this thing you can be aware of, to defend yourself against one more form of psychic/emotional attack. Right?
I think this is kind of nuts. It’s a popular form of nuts, but it’s still nuts.
Looking at the Duolingo example I gave, it doesn’t address the question of why those achievements counted as a lotus structure for me. There are tons of things others find have lotus nature that I don’t (e.g., gambling). And vice versa: my mother (who’s an avid Duolingo user) couldn’t care less about those achievements.
So what gives?
I have a guess, but I think that’s outside the purview of the purpose of these reviews. I’ll just note that “We’re in a worldwide memetic war zone where everyone is out to get us by hijacking our minds!” is (a) not the hypothesis to default to and (b) if true is itself a questionable meme that seems engineered to stimulate fight-or-flight type reactions that do, indeed, hijack clarity of mind.
With all that said, I still think there’s a ton of value in “noticing the taste of lotus” as the title suggests. It’s pointing out where we’re more likely to believe our motivations are getting diverted from our goals if we were to notice.
It’s just that, about a year and a half later, I now reflect on this being a very basic entry point to a much more interesting question.
In particular, this “hijacking” is basically how culture works from what I can tell. Is culture wicked? Or is it benevolent? Or is it a mix? How can we tell whether the reasoning faculties we’re using to work out these puzzles are themselves “hijacked” by having been immersed in a culture of lotus-eaters?
From what I’ve been able to see for myself and reason about, I think you can’t answer those questions from within the framework that’s asking them. It’s too fear-based. “Fear-based” isn’t inherently bad, but when the fear isn’t acknowledged as the base then you can basically guarantee that the thinking isn’t clear. (As Carl Jung said: “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it ‘fate’.”)
A few relatively minor notes that I imagine y’all would find relevant:
I went back to Duolingo a few months ago. I’m even using the achievements a bit. I just worked out a way to have the “lotus nature” work toward my goals with French.
I made a minor edit to the article, changing a single letter to correct the grammar (“build” to “built”).
Looking at the Duolingo example I gave, it doesn’t address the question of why those achievements counted as a lotus structure for me. There are tons of things others find have lotus nature that I don’t (e.g., gambling). And vice versa: my mother (who’s an avid Duolingo user) couldn’t care less about those achievements.
So what gives?
I have a guess, but I think that’s outside the purview of the purpose of these reviews.
FWIW I think this sort of thing is actually among the more interesting things to cover in the review phase. Some things I’m most excited about the review phase include:
Figuring out out what the underlying gears were for ideas that were more metaphorical, or flavorful
Figuring out the limits of models
Thinking about how a model fits into the rest of the world
Ah, I didn’t realize these post as comments. That’s fine, I’ll leave this here.
I’m also amused by my poor modeling of intending “a few quick notes”. I’m smiling bemusedly at myself, and also taking in that this has been a chronic years-long glitch in self-modeling. Oh, humans.
I have a guess, but I think that’s outside the purview of the purpose of these reviews.
I haven’t been deeply involved in the 2018 Review design process, maybe Ben and Ray have specific ideas, but my own vote is that reviewers should feel free to share whatever thoughts they have in response to their posts without worry about them going out of of bounds.
I could imagine it being better if non-author reviews try to stay focused, but I’d vote that authors feel quite free to share all their current thoughts.
I thought I’d add a few quick notes as the author.
As I reread this, a few things jump out for me:
I enjoy its writing style. Its clarity is probably part of why it was nominated.
I’d now say this post is making a couple of distinct claims:
External forces can shape what we want to do. (I.e., there are lotuses.)
It’s possible to notice this in real time. (I.e., you can notice the taste of lotuses.)
It’s good to do so. Otherwise we find our wanting aligned with others’ goals regardless of how they relate to our own.
If you notice this, you’ll find yourself wanting to spit out lotuses that you can tell pull you away from your goals.
I still basically agree with the content.
I think the emotional undertone is a little confused, says the version of me about 19 months later.
That last point is probably the most interesting to meta-reviewers, so I’ll say a little about that here.
The basic emotional backdrop I brought in writing this was something like, “Look out, you could get hijacked! Better watch out!” And then luckily there’s this thing you can be aware of, to defend yourself against one more form of psychic/emotional attack. Right?
I think this is kind of nuts. It’s a popular form of nuts, but it’s still nuts.
Looking at the Duolingo example I gave, it doesn’t address the question of why those achievements counted as a lotus structure for me. There are tons of things others find have lotus nature that I don’t (e.g., gambling). And vice versa: my mother (who’s an avid Duolingo user) couldn’t care less about those achievements.
So what gives?
I have a guess, but I think that’s outside the purview of the purpose of these reviews. I’ll just note that “We’re in a worldwide memetic war zone where everyone is out to get us by hijacking our minds!” is (a) not the hypothesis to default to and (b) if true is itself a questionable meme that seems engineered to stimulate fight-or-flight type reactions that do, indeed, hijack clarity of mind.
With all that said, I still think there’s a ton of value in “noticing the taste of lotus” as the title suggests. It’s pointing out where we’re more likely to believe our motivations are getting diverted from our goals if we were to notice.
It’s just that, about a year and a half later, I now reflect on this being a very basic entry point to a much more interesting question.
In particular, this “hijacking” is basically how culture works from what I can tell. Is culture wicked? Or is it benevolent? Or is it a mix? How can we tell whether the reasoning faculties we’re using to work out these puzzles are themselves “hijacked” by having been immersed in a culture of lotus-eaters?
From what I’ve been able to see for myself and reason about, I think you can’t answer those questions from within the framework that’s asking them. It’s too fear-based. “Fear-based” isn’t inherently bad, but when the fear isn’t acknowledged as the base then you can basically guarantee that the thinking isn’t clear. (As Carl Jung said: “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it ‘fate’.”)
A few relatively minor notes that I imagine y’all would find relevant:
I went back to Duolingo a few months ago. I’m even using the achievements a bit. I just worked out a way to have the “lotus nature” work toward my goals with French.
I made a minor edit to the article, changing a single letter to correct the grammar (“build” to “built”).
FWIW I think this sort of thing is actually among the more interesting things to cover in the review phase. Some things I’m most excited about the review phase include:
Figuring out out what the underlying gears were for ideas that were more metaphorical, or flavorful
Figuring out the limits of models
Thinking about how a model fits into the rest of the world
Ah, I didn’t realize these post as comments. That’s fine, I’ll leave this here.
I’m also amused by my poor modeling of intending “a few quick notes”. I’m smiling bemusedly at myself, and also taking in that this has been a chronic years-long glitch in self-modeling. Oh, humans.
I haven’t been deeply involved in the 2018 Review design process, maybe Ben and Ray have specific ideas, but my own vote is that reviewers should feel free to share whatever thoughts they have in response to their posts without worry about them going out of of bounds.
I could imagine it being better if non-author reviews try to stay focused, but I’d vote that authors feel quite free to share all their current thoughts.