“… and so I don’t care about dating anyhow, and I have no reason to risk approaching someone.”
This doesn’t seem like it is a distorted reward pathway. Unless people are valuing being virtuous and not wasting time and money on dating?
If it is a problem it seems more likely to be an Ugh field. I.e. someone who had problems with the opposite sex and doesn’t want to explore a painful area.
Apart from that I think rwallace’s point needs to be addressed. Lack of compartmentalisation can be a bad thing as well as a good thing. Implicit in this piece is the idea that the good behaviours/ideas will win out over the bad.
“… and so I don’t care about dating anyhow, and I have no reason to risk approaching someone.”
This doesn’t seem like it is a distorted reward pathway.
People seem to feel better about not achieving things they “don’t care about” than about ignoring or failing at things they care about. Thus the phenomenon of sour grapes (where, after Aesop’s fox fails to get the grapes, it declares that the grapes “were sour anyway”). I’m not sure if sour grapes arises because we don’t want to expect pain and desire-dissatisfaction in our futures (because one e.g. cares about dating, but plans not to ever work toward it) or because we prefer to think of ourselves as the sorts of people who would act on desires instead of fleeing in fear, or what.
I agree that ugh fields are also involved in the example.
Sour grapes are essential when they’re one shot opportunities that we missed (perfect world: first learn from any mistake, then emotionally salve w/ sour grapes).
They’re a detriment when the opportunity is ongoing and, fear of more possible failures considered, likely worth the effort.
Sour grapes are essential when they’re one shot opportunities that we missed (perfect world: first learn from any mistake, then emotionally salve w/ sour grapes).
Sour grapes are never essential. Not only are there better emotional salves it is healthier to just not take emotional damage from missed opportunities or mistakes in the first place. (This is a skill that can be developed.)
I take the “Meh, I’ve had worse” approach to deflecting emotional damage. I’m also partial to considering missed opportunities to be trivial additions to the enormous heap of missed opportunities before them.
No need for sour grapes here. In fact, let’s keep all grapes sweet and succulent just in case we get them later.
People certainly don’t need to make their emotional reactions rational if they don’t want to—but they can do so to some extent when it helps. This is the cornerstone of things like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and much of pjeby’s mind hacking.
It’s hard to describe without going into huge detail but something that works is embracing the frustration in the full degree rather than flinching away from it. Then you can release it. Then rinse and repeat. The emotional trigger is reduced as your mind begins to realise that it really isn’t as awful as you thought.
You can also harness the frustration into renewed motivation for reaching the generalised goal that hit a setback or localised failure. This is nearly (but not quite) the opposite of using the frustration to remove your desire for something.
I’ve also read about CBT and agree that it seems helpful. I took from it the idea that if you’re avoiding some activity that you think you would probably benefit from, look at the reasons you think it will be hard/painful/whatever, and you should not only think about and defuse them purely intellectually, but also through practice (starting w/ milder efforts) get your toes wet in that direction, comparing the actual results to your overblown negative expectations.
Also, in my experience, I’ve never been disappointed when I honestly describe some negative emotional reaction I’m already having, and look for some insight into why I’m having it. That is, I’m already feeling terrible, and so coming up with true-seeming stories explaining the feeling (and perhaps deciding that I’ve learned something, or have some plan for doing better in the future) is a mild relief.
Also, in my experience, I’ve never been disappointed when I honestly describe some negative emotional reaction I’m already having, and look for some insight into why I’m having it. That is, I’m already feeling terrible, and so coming up with true-seeming stories explaining the feeling (and perhaps deciding that I’ve learned something, or have some plan for doing better in the future) is a mild relief.
This reminds me of the popular “what is true is already so; owning up to it doesn’t make it worse”.
It’s hard to describe without going into huge detail but something that works is embracing the frustration in the full degree rather than flinching away from it. Then you can release it.
“I must not be frustrated. …. I will face my frustration, permit it to pass over me and through me …”
I honestly use the Litany Against Fear quite like this—for frustration, annoyance, pain, or anything else that I have to put up with for a while. The metaphor of passing over and through works well for me.
My twist on that is that I use ‘will’ instead of ‘must’. Similar to Jonathan I don’t think I need to alter my emotional responses and I reject such demands even from myself. “Will”, “want” and sometimes “am” all work better for me. (This can just mean leaving off the first sentence there.)
I won’t look for the study hyperlink, but I was also charmed by something showing that the self-question “will I X?” was interesting in that it actually movtivated people to do X (more so than something like “I must X”). That is, having a curious/wondering tone seemed helpful. I and the reporters of this result may be missing the actual cause, of course.
I’ve seen it, probably while reading through pjeby’s work. It’s one of favourite tactics. I don’t recall the name he gives it but that curious wondering tone seems to work wonders.
That makes sense to me. “Must” implies a moral code; if you decline to accept responsibility from any external moral code, you could interpret it as “must, according to rational methods of achieving my personal goals,” but there’s no advantage to that circuitous interpretation over the changes you suggest.
Disclaimer: I believe I have a lot less interest in dating than most men. Partially introspection/partially revealed preference when opportunity arose.
I hadn’t thought about that view. One thing is that it is worth noting is that it is hard to ignore dating. And people tend to ask for some explanation, I tend to go with, “I haven’t found the right person yet,” though.
Although what would you say the right response was to not being willing to pay a cost for something? Lets say you want a sports car, you lust after it for a bit. Then you find it costs 3 million dollars, and you could always find better things to do with the money.
Should you then say you don’t care about the sports car? Or should you leave it as a nagging desire which will never be fulfilled?
Should you then say you don’t care about the sports car? Or should you leave it as a nagging desire which will never be fulfilled?
This seems like a false dichotomy. My answer to this question is something along the lines of “the current price of a sports car is more than I am currently willing to pay for the pleasure of owning a sports car, in the future circumstances may be different but for now I will make higher expected value choices”.
To me things and people I care about are those that I willingly expend some mental energy on every so often. So when I care about owning a sports car, every so often it would pop into my head, “Darn, I wish the car was cheaper”. As it is unlikely to become so it would be an unfulfilled desire and taking up mental energy for no reason, I could spend that mental energy elsewhere.
Care is different from value. Does that explain what I meant?
I think I understand what you mean, I just don’t think it’s a good strategy to try to convince yourself you don’t care about something because it is not currently attainable. A better alternative might be to think about what appeals to you about owning a sports car and consider if there are lower cost ways of getting some of the same benefits for example.
Oh, I agree. But once you have done so would it be a bad idea to say you no longer care about the sport’s car?
Aside: I didn’t mean to give the impression it was unattainable. The hypothetical still works if you’ve got 4 million dollars, you could buy a house and donate some money to xrisk charities, found companies or put it aside for retirement. All better things than the car.
If you want a sports car that implies that there is some point at which the best marginal use of your next 3 million dollars would be to buy the sports car. If there is no such point then it seems to me that you don’t really want it in any meaningful sense.
This doesn’t seem like it is a distorted reward pathway. Unless people are valuing being virtuous and not wasting time and money on dating?
If it is a problem it seems more likely to be an Ugh field. I.e. someone who had problems with the opposite sex and doesn’t want to explore a painful area.
Apart from that I think rwallace’s point needs to be addressed. Lack of compartmentalisation can be a bad thing as well as a good thing. Implicit in this piece is the idea that the good behaviours/ideas will win out over the bad.
People seem to feel better about not achieving things they “don’t care about” than about ignoring or failing at things they care about. Thus the phenomenon of sour grapes (where, after Aesop’s fox fails to get the grapes, it declares that the grapes “were sour anyway”). I’m not sure if sour grapes arises because we don’t want to expect pain and desire-dissatisfaction in our futures (because one e.g. cares about dating, but plans not to ever work toward it) or because we prefer to think of ourselves as the sorts of people who would act on desires instead of fleeing in fear, or what.
I agree that ugh fields are also involved in the example.
Sour grapes are essential when they’re one shot opportunities that we missed (perfect world: first learn from any mistake, then emotionally salve w/ sour grapes).
They’re a detriment when the opportunity is ongoing and, fear of more possible failures considered, likely worth the effort.
Sour grapes are never essential. Not only are there better emotional salves it is healthier to just not take emotional damage from missed opportunities or mistakes in the first place. (This is a skill that can be developed.)
I take the “Meh, I’ve had worse” approach to deflecting emotional damage. I’m also partial to considering missed opportunities to be trivial additions to the enormous heap of missed opportunities before them.
No need for sour grapes here. In fact, let’s keep all grapes sweet and succulent just in case we get them later.
Thanks, now I’m hungry.
Interesting. Can you be more specific?
I don’t feel like I can, or need to, make all of my emotional reactions rational. But if it’s easy, of course I prefer to be better integrated.
People certainly don’t need to make their emotional reactions rational if they don’t want to—but they can do so to some extent when it helps. This is the cornerstone of things like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and much of pjeby’s mind hacking.
It’s hard to describe without going into huge detail but something that works is embracing the frustration in the full degree rather than flinching away from it. Then you can release it. Then rinse and repeat. The emotional trigger is reduced as your mind begins to realise that it really isn’t as awful as you thought.
You can also harness the frustration into renewed motivation for reaching the generalised goal that hit a setback or localised failure. This is nearly (but not quite) the opposite of using the frustration to remove your desire for something.
I’ve also read about CBT and agree that it seems helpful. I took from it the idea that if you’re avoiding some activity that you think you would probably benefit from, look at the reasons you think it will be hard/painful/whatever, and you should not only think about and defuse them purely intellectually, but also through practice (starting w/ milder efforts) get your toes wet in that direction, comparing the actual results to your overblown negative expectations.
Also, in my experience, I’ve never been disappointed when I honestly describe some negative emotional reaction I’m already having, and look for some insight into why I’m having it. That is, I’m already feeling terrible, and so coming up with true-seeming stories explaining the feeling (and perhaps deciding that I’ve learned something, or have some plan for doing better in the future) is a mild relief.
This reminds me of the popular “what is true is already so; owning up to it doesn’t make it worse”.
Also, see today’s SMBC comic. His timing is incredible. :)
“I must not be frustrated. …. I will face my frustration, permit it to pass over me and through me …”
I honestly use the Litany Against Fear quite like this—for frustration, annoyance, pain, or anything else that I have to put up with for a while. The metaphor of passing over and through works well for me.
My twist on that is that I use ‘will’ instead of ‘must’. Similar to Jonathan I don’t think I need to alter my emotional responses and I reject such demands even from myself. “Will”, “want” and sometimes “am” all work better for me. (This can just mean leaving off the first sentence there.)
I won’t look for the study hyperlink, but I was also charmed by something showing that the self-question “will I X?” was interesting in that it actually movtivated people to do X (more so than something like “I must X”). That is, having a curious/wondering tone seemed helpful. I and the reporters of this result may be missing the actual cause, of course.
I’ve seen it, probably while reading through pjeby’s work. It’s one of favourite tactics. I don’t recall the name he gives it but that curious wondering tone seems to work wonders.
That makes sense to me. “Must” implies a moral code; if you decline to accept responsibility from any external moral code, you could interpret it as “must, according to rational methods of achieving my personal goals,” but there’s no advantage to that circuitous interpretation over the changes you suggest.
Exactly the reasoning I use.
Disclaimer: I believe I have a lot less interest in dating than most men. Partially introspection/partially revealed preference when opportunity arose.
I hadn’t thought about that view. One thing is that it is worth noting is that it is hard to ignore dating. And people tend to ask for some explanation, I tend to go with, “I haven’t found the right person yet,” though.
Although what would you say the right response was to not being willing to pay a cost for something? Lets say you want a sports car, you lust after it for a bit. Then you find it costs 3 million dollars, and you could always find better things to do with the money.
Should you then say you don’t care about the sports car? Or should you leave it as a nagging desire which will never be fulfilled?
This seems like a false dichotomy. My answer to this question is something along the lines of “the current price of a sports car is more than I am currently willing to pay for the pleasure of owning a sports car, in the future circumstances may be different but for now I will make higher expected value choices”.
To me things and people I care about are those that I willingly expend some mental energy on every so often. So when I care about owning a sports car, every so often it would pop into my head, “Darn, I wish the car was cheaper”. As it is unlikely to become so it would be an unfulfilled desire and taking up mental energy for no reason, I could spend that mental energy elsewhere.
Care is different from value. Does that explain what I meant?
I think I understand what you mean, I just don’t think it’s a good strategy to try to convince yourself you don’t care about something because it is not currently attainable. A better alternative might be to think about what appeals to you about owning a sports car and consider if there are lower cost ways of getting some of the same benefits for example.
Oh, I agree. But once you have done so would it be a bad idea to say you no longer care about the sport’s car?
Aside: I didn’t mean to give the impression it was unattainable. The hypothetical still works if you’ve got 4 million dollars, you could buy a house and donate some money to xrisk charities, found companies or put it aside for retirement. All better things than the car.
If you want a sports car that implies that there is some point at which the best marginal use of your next 3 million dollars would be to buy the sports car. If there is no such point then it seems to me that you don’t really want it in any meaningful sense.