One of the things I learned in practicing the Alexander Technique could be labeled by this phrase. I would describe it as doing something to discover whether or not it succeeds, rather than trying to force it to succeed or fail.
If under hypnosis you first tell a person that his arm is stuck and then tell them to try to move their arm they won’t move the arm. If you tell them to allow to move the arm to a specific position on the other hand they will move the arm.
You don’t need to spend any time to explain the person the concept of trying to get that effect.
But when it comes to interacting with people, organizing a group, and other old fields, it seems likely to me that any concept discussed today was probably first noticed long, long ago, but perhaps only clearly articulated recently.
I think that largely depends with whom you are discussing things. If the people with whom you are in conversation don’t have sophisticated knowledge, then you are unlikely to say things that are really new.
On the other hand I doubt that people two hundred years ago had a concept of microexpressions that only take 50ms. We only know about them because we have cameras.
Yoda’s statements only make sense retrospectively; once one understands what Yoda understands, then they can infer what he meant to say.
It’s typical for “spiritual teachers” to answer questions in a way that the answer takes a month to be understood. The fact that the answer isn’t understood at the moment it’s given doesn’t mean that it was not the right answer at that point of time.
It’s not clear to me that you can always short circuit that month by providing a different explanation.
On the other hand I doubt that people two hundred years ago had a concept of microexpressions that only take 50ms. We only know about them because we have cameras.
I suspect people have been noticing microexpressions in others for thousands of years, but have been unable to articulate what specifically they were noticing because they’re too short to reach conscious attention as anything besides an impression of the other person’s emotional state. (Unless I’m misremembering Ekman, he’s come across people who were able to notice them without taking any training from him beforehand.)
It’s not clear to me that you can always short circuit that month by providing a different explanation.
To say it’s always possible would require an impossibility proof for obstacles, so I won’t attempt that. But it does seem to me that you can minimize the number of hidden inferential leaps by making as many as possible explicit, and that with a narrow enough focus, a specific curriculum for that issue could be developed, and the spiritual teacher’s problem is that they don’t have the time / narrow enough focus to develop a curriculum for every issue.
I suspect people have been noticing microexpressions in others for thousands of years, but have been unable to articulate what specifically they were noticing because they’re too short to reach conscious attention as anything besides an impression of the other person’s emotional state. (Unless I’m misremembering Ekman, he’s come across people who were able to notice them without taking any training from him beforehand.)
Microexpressions are not the only thing that’s outside of conscious attention that gives us information about the feelings of another person.
It’s worthwhile to be able to distinguish different ways and label them.
But it does seem to me that you can minimize the number of hidden inferential leaps by making as many as possible explicit, and that with a narrow enough focus, a specific curriculum for that issue could be developed
Even if it’s possible to build a specific curriculum that teaches a certain skill, that doesn’t mean that it teaches the skill faster than a month.
Just as you can’t get a sixpack in a week, changing substantial things about your mental landscape might also take time.
It’s typical for “spiritual teachers” to answer questions in a way that the answer takes a month to be understood. The fact that the answer isn’t understood at the moment it’s given doesn’t mean that it was not the right answer at that point of time. It’s not clear to me that you can always short circuit that month by providing a different explanation.
Of course, this makes “the meaning was imparted originally, rather than being chosen post-hoc” into an unfalsifiable position.
Of course, this makes “the meaning was imparted originally, rather than being chosen post-hoc” into an unfalsifiable position.
So, I can imagine a scenario where Yoda says cryptic statement X, and then privately expands on X to make it specific in a letter, and then a month later the person says “I finally get X,” and then Yoda’s letter is opened and checked. That is, Yoda could know exactly what path the student will go down in response to the cryptic statement, and we could test that ahead of time by showing Yoda lots of students and getting him to write down lots of predictions.
But you’re correct that Yoda could inflate his statistics by saying one common deep thing, and then when students come back with twenty specific epiphanies, saying “yes, that specific epiphany was caused by my deep statement,” even though he doesn’t have the ability to predict which student will have which epiphany. (Especially when it comes to reading ancient works, we only have our retrospective predictions and judgments!)
So, I can imagine a scenario where Yoda says cryptic statement X, and then privately expands on X to make it specific in a letter, and then a month later the person says “I finally get X,” and then Yoda’s letter is opened and checked.
I can imagine it too, just not with actual Yodas. (Well, Yoda is fictional, but you know what I mean.) I could even generalize this beyond Yoda: Most people won’t help you figure out whether they’re saying something meaningful or just spouting hot air. This is especially true for the ones that produce the most hot air—after all, they don’t want you to know that they’re doing it. Helping you know, by giving you sealed envelopes or anything else, would defeat the purpose of doing it.
Even the ones that produce hot air out of sincere ignorance probably don’t want you to be able to figure out whether they are spouting hot air—anyone who did would get selected out of existence.
If under hypnosis you first tell a person that his arm is stuck and then tell them to try to move their arm they won’t move the arm. If you tell them to allow to move the arm to a specific position on the other hand they will move the arm.
You don’t need to spend any time to explain the person the concept of trying to get that effect.
I think that largely depends with whom you are discussing things. If the people with whom you are in conversation don’t have sophisticated knowledge, then you are unlikely to say things that are really new.
On the other hand I doubt that people two hundred years ago had a concept of microexpressions that only take 50ms. We only know about them because we have cameras.
It’s typical for “spiritual teachers” to answer questions in a way that the answer takes a month to be understood. The fact that the answer isn’t understood at the moment it’s given doesn’t mean that it was not the right answer at that point of time. It’s not clear to me that you can always short circuit that month by providing a different explanation.
I suspect people have been noticing microexpressions in others for thousands of years, but have been unable to articulate what specifically they were noticing because they’re too short to reach conscious attention as anything besides an impression of the other person’s emotional state. (Unless I’m misremembering Ekman, he’s come across people who were able to notice them without taking any training from him beforehand.)
To say it’s always possible would require an impossibility proof for obstacles, so I won’t attempt that. But it does seem to me that you can minimize the number of hidden inferential leaps by making as many as possible explicit, and that with a narrow enough focus, a specific curriculum for that issue could be developed, and the spiritual teacher’s problem is that they don’t have the time / narrow enough focus to develop a curriculum for every issue.
Microexpressions are not the only thing that’s outside of conscious attention that gives us information about the feelings of another person.
It’s worthwhile to be able to distinguish different ways and label them.
Even if it’s possible to build a specific curriculum that teaches a certain skill, that doesn’t mean that it teaches the skill faster than a month.
Just as you can’t get a sixpack in a week, changing substantial things about your mental landscape might also take time.
Of course, this makes “the meaning was imparted originally, rather than being chosen post-hoc” into an unfalsifiable position.
So, I can imagine a scenario where Yoda says cryptic statement X, and then privately expands on X to make it specific in a letter, and then a month later the person says “I finally get X,” and then Yoda’s letter is opened and checked. That is, Yoda could know exactly what path the student will go down in response to the cryptic statement, and we could test that ahead of time by showing Yoda lots of students and getting him to write down lots of predictions.
But you’re correct that Yoda could inflate his statistics by saying one common deep thing, and then when students come back with twenty specific epiphanies, saying “yes, that specific epiphany was caused by my deep statement,” even though he doesn’t have the ability to predict which student will have which epiphany. (Especially when it comes to reading ancient works, we only have our retrospective predictions and judgments!)
I can imagine it too, just not with actual Yodas. (Well, Yoda is fictional, but you know what I mean.) I could even generalize this beyond Yoda: Most people won’t help you figure out whether they’re saying something meaningful or just spouting hot air. This is especially true for the ones that produce the most hot air—after all, they don’t want you to know that they’re doing it. Helping you know, by giving you sealed envelopes or anything else, would defeat the purpose of doing it.
Even the ones that produce hot air out of sincere ignorance probably don’t want you to be able to figure out whether they are spouting hot air—anyone who did would get selected out of existence.
Not really. You just need concepts that are more illusive than the meaning of the word “trying”.