Lucidity in the context of lucid dreaming is a broadly useful term.
Lucidity as you define it in your post is a subjective property of human interactions. I have the relatively frequent experience of encountering that form of “lucidity” from people/behaviors which evoke annoyance or boredom in others, or experiencing annoyance/boredom where others find “lucidity”. Thus, as with any interpersonal phenomenon, any description of “lucidity” is at best half-baked without the explicit metadata of to whom.
This missing “to whom?” shows most clearly when you say “a lucid person is compelling, …”. Perhaps it would help to name the trait which causes someone to find lucidity compelling—you clearly have it, but that doesn’t promise that anyone or everyone else will.
Most people consider themselves lucid the same way that most people consider themselves smart or principled — this is a fallacy just like how 80% of drivers think they are above-average drivers. It’s far more accurate to assess lucidity in others.
You try to discuss the implausibility of “accurate” self-assessment with “It’s far more accurate to assess lucidity in others.”, but unfortunately I remain lost by the rhetoric because the rest of the essay avoided offering any leads on quantifying, measuring, or comparing lucidity in the ways that would be prerequisite to testing whether any form of assessing it is more “accurate” than another.
A useful addition to the post, if your goal is to pin down a clear definition of lucidity, would be to characterize the pathologies of both too much and too little of it.
The good news for you is that if somebody sent you this essay, they likely consider you lucid. Learn to recognize this trait and surround yourself with other lucid people — you’ll be all the better for it.
That’s quite the leap. Not only are you assuming you know what the reader considers best for themself, but you’re implying there would be no drawbacks to eschewing the non-lucid. In your two examples of lucidity through the article, James got himself into trouble with it, and David mechanically applied the “five whys” principle after perhaps seeing a bit about it on TV.
If you’re going to argue that having a lucid person surround themself with other lucid people is all “better” with no drawbacks worth mentioning, it would be helpful to lay the groundwork for such a claim earlier in the article by either highlighting the increasing benefits to both parties of interactions between more-ludid individuals, or the relative drawbacks of interactions with less-lucid individuals.
I agree that lucidity is a fairly subjective trait, but I don’t find that to be unique. Virtually all traits describing people are subjective. There is no measure for charismatic, curious, or witty. Even traits like intelligence that do come with a measure like IQ are imperfectly approximated at best.
I think I misleadingly portrayed lucidity as being A. a social trait and B. a synonym for charismatic.
The bit on pathologies is interesting and I hadn’t considered that! A great point.
James avoided trouble by being lucid, perhaps I wasn’t overly clear about that. I think more examples about the ways where lucidity could help or harm would be beneficial.
Overall, this is helpful for my future essays, and I really appreciate your feedback!
Thanks, I’m glad my guess at how to balance critical and constructive came across okay :)
I agree that lucidity is a fairly subjective trait, but I don’t find that to be unique.
I agree, including that it’s not unique. However, the impact of subjectivity is that it takes more work to convincingly defend claims shaped like “it’s always good to have more of the trait” or “these actions will get you more/less of the trait”. If you let the reader guess how the trait should be measured for comparison, it’s likely that they’ll assume a metric other than the one you had in mind.
I think I misleadingly portrayed lucidity as being A. a social trait and B. a synonym for charismatic.
When I read your post, I got the strong impression that detecting lucidity is a social process, which may have lost some resolution in my reply to become (A). But going only from your original post, I could easily construct an example of an individual who is charismatic but non-lucid—the stereotype of the “NPC” socialite or celebrity, who is charming but eminently superficial, would be one. So I don’t see (B) as being an issue.
James avoided trouble by being lucid, perhaps I wasn’t overly clear about that. I think more examples about the ways where lucidity could help or harm would be beneficial.
Perhaps some assumptions about relationship dynamics were in play? Here’s how the little vignette expanded for me, based on personal experiences of having been the “irrational” one in various arguments over the years:
When they argue, Stacy quickly devolves to making irrational, emotional arguments.
The caricature of this class of argument, when it’s played out in my own life, looks something like this:
S: hey, could please you put stuff in the sink instead of beside it?
J: sure
(time passes, J puts dishes in the sink a few times then goes back to putting them next to it, S asks again, J agrees to put the dishes in the sink when S asks...)
S: hey why are you still doing the thing you said you agreed not to when I asked you to do differently
J: because it doesn't really matter
(this is factually correct at the surface level -- the material impact of where the dishes get put is negligible, despite the outsize emotional impact of the overarching situation of J having repeatedly made the "ok sure" noise when asked to make the tiny gesture of putting the dishes in rather than next to the sink)
S: so actually it matters to me, here's how it's not just about the dishes but about how I feel when you say you'll do a thing and then don't do it
J: calm down, it's literally just some dishes
Now we’re in a situation where S is hurt by J’s behavior, in ways that look irrational and emotional. Because yeah, it’s not about the dishes, it’s about the more general case of if/how J saying he will or won’t do a (small, easy) thing correlates to whether the thing actually happens. S’s honeymoon-era, new-relationship-energy impression that J cares about her “in general” is updating to an impression that J only cares about her feelings in situations where he thinks they’re important/valid, and furthermore his assessment of what’s important differs significantly from hers. This is a bad/scary feeling, and her emotional reaction is proportionate to the prospect of a whole future with a partner who only follows through on issues that he considers valid (and doesn’t readily update his views on an issue’s validity), which is profoundly disproportionate to the reaction appropriate for the isolated incident of a particular dish being left out on a particular day.
be lucid and recognize the abstract games at play by choosing to appeal to Stacy’s emotions.
You invite the reader to imagine what “appeal to Stacy’s emotions” means, and I construct something like “but Stacy, if you loved me you wouldn’t make such a big deal about the dishes, if you trusted me you’d know that I’ll be reliable where it matters even if you don’t feel like I’m being reliable about the dishes”. This does not look like “winning” to me.
Conversely I imagine “competent” behaviors in the argument, I get problem-solving such as “could we put something next to the sink to remind me not to set my glass there”, which is a whole lot closer to “winning” than what I imagine for “appeal to emotion”.
So, that’s a lot of words for why “appeal to emotions” did not map to “winning” to n=1 readers =)
>Thanks, I’m glad my guess at how to balance critical and constructive came across okay :)
It did indeed :) Thanks for playing with this idea with me
>If you let the reader guess how the trait should be measured for comparison, it’s likely that they’ll assume a metric other than the one you had in mind.
Agreed!
>When I read your post, I got the strong impression that detecting lucidity is a social process...
Detecting lucidity is largely a social process, but lucidity itself is not merely a social trait. As you correctly identify with the laundromat example, somebody’s action may appear lucid without possessing the underlying trait. In order to actually discern lucidity, you need to understand their motivations and thought process, which is easiest through social contact.
Your example dialogue is very helpful for me to hopefully elucidate what I originally meant, and also tried to reference with the laundromat example:
In life, you will be put in various positions [which I call games], and you can generally either choose to play those games or change the game altogether. Recognizing this is lucid.
The non-lucid James doesn’t recognize that he is playing games, nor that he can change the game. The only game that he knows how to play is “be factually correct” and he plays that very well. This leads to the breakdowns that you describe in the scenario.
The fallout that you describe is an example of the two of them playing different games. Stacy is expecting James to play the “demonstrate you care about my feelings even in situations where you don’t find them factually correct” game, but he doesn’t realize that.
By appealing to S’s emotions, I originally meant he acknowledges her feelings — saying something like “I understand why you feel this way” and making sure the “root cause” of the argument, Stacy feeling emotionally neglected, is addressed.
It’s not unlike the classic male-female divide when discussing problems of “men want solutions, women want to be heard.” Recognizing this meta-game and playing it accordingly is a step towards lucidity, rather than a man always playing the “solution” game with his wife.
Your example dialogue is very helpful for me to hopefully elucidate what I originally meant, and also tried to reference with the laundromat example
✨elucidate✨
It’s not unlike the classic male-female divide when discussing problems of “men want solutions, women want to be heard.” Recognizing this meta-game and playing it accordingly is a step towards lucidity, rather than a man always playing the “solution” game with his wife.
Alternate framing: the men’s stereotype is about solving the previous instance of the problem; the women’s stereotype is about solving/preventing the next instance =)
Lucidity in the context of lucid dreaming is a broadly useful term.
Lucidity as you define it in your post is a subjective property of human interactions. I have the relatively frequent experience of encountering that form of “lucidity” from people/behaviors which evoke annoyance or boredom in others, or experiencing annoyance/boredom where others find “lucidity”. Thus, as with any interpersonal phenomenon, any description of “lucidity” is at best half-baked without the explicit metadata of to whom.
This missing “to whom?” shows most clearly when you say “a lucid person is compelling, …”. Perhaps it would help to name the trait which causes someone to find lucidity compelling—you clearly have it, but that doesn’t promise that anyone or everyone else will.
You try to discuss the implausibility of “accurate” self-assessment with “It’s far more accurate to assess lucidity in others.”, but unfortunately I remain lost by the rhetoric because the rest of the essay avoided offering any leads on quantifying, measuring, or comparing lucidity in the ways that would be prerequisite to testing whether any form of assessing it is more “accurate” than another.
A useful addition to the post, if your goal is to pin down a clear definition of lucidity, would be to characterize the pathologies of both too much and too little of it.
That’s quite the leap. Not only are you assuming you know what the reader considers best for themself, but you’re implying there would be no drawbacks to eschewing the non-lucid. In your two examples of lucidity through the article, James got himself into trouble with it, and David mechanically applied the “five whys” principle after perhaps seeing a bit about it on TV.
If you’re going to argue that having a lucid person surround themself with other lucid people is all “better” with no drawbacks worth mentioning, it would be helpful to lay the groundwork for such a claim earlier in the article by either highlighting the increasing benefits to both parties of interactions between more-ludid individuals, or the relative drawbacks of interactions with less-lucid individuals.
I appreciate your feedback!
I agree that lucidity is a fairly subjective trait, but I don’t find that to be unique. Virtually all traits describing people are subjective. There is no measure for charismatic, curious, or witty. Even traits like intelligence that do come with a measure like IQ are imperfectly approximated at best.
I think I misleadingly portrayed lucidity as being A. a social trait and B. a synonym for charismatic.
The bit on pathologies is interesting and I hadn’t considered that! A great point.
James avoided trouble by being lucid, perhaps I wasn’t overly clear about that. I think more examples about the ways where lucidity could help or harm would be beneficial.
Overall, this is helpful for my future essays, and I really appreciate your feedback!
Thanks, I’m glad my guess at how to balance critical and constructive came across okay :)
I agree, including that it’s not unique. However, the impact of subjectivity is that it takes more work to convincingly defend claims shaped like “it’s always good to have more of the trait” or “these actions will get you more/less of the trait”. If you let the reader guess how the trait should be measured for comparison, it’s likely that they’ll assume a metric other than the one you had in mind.
When I read your post, I got the strong impression that detecting lucidity is a social process, which may have lost some resolution in my reply to become (A). But going only from your original post, I could easily construct an example of an individual who is charismatic but non-lucid—the stereotype of the “NPC” socialite or celebrity, who is charming but eminently superficial, would be one. So I don’t see (B) as being an issue.
Perhaps some assumptions about relationship dynamics were in play? Here’s how the little vignette expanded for me, based on personal experiences of having been the “irrational” one in various arguments over the years:
As a concrete example that I’m guessing may qualify as this type of argument, let’s borrow the one about the dishes, as explored in https://www.huffpost.com/entry/she-divorced-me-i-left-dishes-by-the-sink_b_9055288 .
The caricature of this class of argument, when it’s played out in my own life, looks something like this:
Now we’re in a situation where S is hurt by J’s behavior, in ways that look irrational and emotional. Because yeah, it’s not about the dishes, it’s about the more general case of if/how J saying he will or won’t do a (small, easy) thing correlates to whether the thing actually happens. S’s honeymoon-era, new-relationship-energy impression that J cares about her “in general” is updating to an impression that J only cares about her feelings in situations where he thinks they’re important/valid, and furthermore his assessment of what’s important differs significantly from hers. This is a bad/scary feeling, and her emotional reaction is proportionate to the prospect of a whole future with a partner who only follows through on issues that he considers valid (and doesn’t readily update his views on an issue’s validity), which is profoundly disproportionate to the reaction appropriate for the isolated incident of a particular dish being left out on a particular day.
You invite the reader to imagine what “appeal to Stacy’s emotions” means, and I construct something like “but Stacy, if you loved me you wouldn’t make such a big deal about the dishes, if you trusted me you’d know that I’ll be reliable where it matters even if you don’t feel like I’m being reliable about the dishes”. This does not look like “winning” to me.
Conversely I imagine “competent” behaviors in the argument, I get problem-solving such as “could we put something next to the sink to remind me not to set my glass there”, which is a whole lot closer to “winning” than what I imagine for “appeal to emotion”.
So, that’s a lot of words for why “appeal to emotions” did not map to “winning” to n=1 readers =)
>Thanks, I’m glad my guess at how to balance critical and constructive came across okay :)
It did indeed :) Thanks for playing with this idea with me
>If you let the reader guess how the trait should be measured for comparison, it’s likely that they’ll assume a metric other than the one you had in mind.
Agreed!
>When I read your post, I got the strong impression that detecting lucidity is a social process...
Detecting lucidity is largely a social process, but lucidity itself is not merely a social trait. As you correctly identify with the laundromat example, somebody’s action may appear lucid without possessing the underlying trait. In order to actually discern lucidity, you need to understand their motivations and thought process, which is easiest through social contact.
Your example dialogue is very helpful for me to hopefully elucidate what I originally meant, and also tried to reference with the laundromat example:
In life, you will be put in various positions [which I call games], and you can generally either choose to play those games or change the game altogether. Recognizing this is lucid.
The non-lucid James doesn’t recognize that he is playing games, nor that he can change the game. The only game that he knows how to play is “be factually correct” and he plays that very well. This leads to the breakdowns that you describe in the scenario.
The fallout that you describe is an example of the two of them playing different games. Stacy is expecting James to play the “demonstrate you care about my feelings even in situations where you don’t find them factually correct” game, but he doesn’t realize that.
By appealing to S’s emotions, I originally meant he acknowledges her feelings — saying something like “I understand why you feel this way” and making sure the “root cause” of the argument, Stacy feeling emotionally neglected, is addressed.
It’s not unlike the classic male-female divide when discussing problems of “men want solutions, women want to be heard.” Recognizing this meta-game and playing it accordingly is a step towards lucidity, rather than a man always playing the “solution” game with his wife.
✨elucidate✨
Alternate framing: the men’s stereotype is about solving the previous instance of the problem; the women’s stereotype is about solving/preventing the next instance =)