So, I’m not really a fan of predictive processing theories of mind. BUT, an interesting implication/suggestion from that perspective is like this:
Suppose you have never before doubted X.
Now you proceed to doubt X.
When you doubt X, it is as if you are going from a 100% belief in X to a noticeably less than 100% belief in X.
We are created in motion, with {values, stances, actions, plans, beliefs, propositions} never yet having been separated out from each other.
Here, X is both a belief and an action-stance.
Therefore when you doubt X, it is as if you are going from a 100% action-stance of X, to a noticeably less than 100% action-stance of X.
In other words, doubting whether something is true, is equivalent to partly deciding to not act in accordance with believing it is true. (Or some even fuzzier version of this.)
Ok, so that’s the explanation. Now an answer blob to
“What [skills / character traits / etc] might reduce risk of psychosis, or might indicate a lack of vulnerability to psychosis, while also being good?”
Basically the idea is: A reverence / awe / fear of doubt. Which isn’t to say “don’t doubt”, but more to say “consider doubting to be a journey; the stronger, newer, and more foundational the doubt, the longer and more difficult the journey”. Or something.
A more general thing in this answer-blob is a respect for cognitive labor; and an attitude of not “biting off more than you can chew”. Like, I think normies pretty often will, in response to some challenge on some ideational point, just say something to the effect of “huh, interesting, yeah IDK, that’s not the sort of thing I would try to think through, but sounds cool”. A LW-coded person doesn’t say that nearly as much / nearly as naturally. I’m not sure what the suggestion should be because it can’t be “don’t think things through in uncommon detail / depth” or “don’t take ideas seriously” or “don’t believe in your ability to think through difficult stuff”, but it would be like “thought is difficult, some thoughts are really big and difficult and would take a long time, sometimes code refactors get bogged down and whole projects die in development hell; be light and nimble with your cognitive investments”.
(Speaking of development hell, that might be a nice metaphier for some manic mental states.)
Cf. the passage from Descartes’s Discourse on Method, part three:
And finally, just as it is not enough, before beginning to rebuild the house where one is living, simply to pull it down, and to make provision for materials and architects or to train oneself in architecture, and also to have carefully drawn up the building plans for it; but it is also necessary to be provided with someplace else where one can live comfortably while working on it; so too, in order not to remain irresolute in my actions while reason required me to be so in my judgments, and in order not to cease to live as happily as possible during this time, I formulated a provisional code of morals, which consisted of but three or four maxims, which I very much want to share with you.
I’ll add a cluster of these, but first I’ll preface with an explanation. (Cf. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n299hFwqBxqwJfZyN/adele-lopez-s-shortform?commentId=99bPbajjHiXinvDCx )
So, I’m not really a fan of predictive processing theories of mind. BUT, an interesting implication/suggestion from that perspective is like this:
Suppose you have never before doubted X.
Now you proceed to doubt X.
When you doubt X, it is as if you are going from a 100% belief in X to a noticeably less than 100% belief in X.
We are created in motion, with {values, stances, actions, plans, beliefs, propositions} never yet having been separated out from each other.
Here, X is both a belief and an action-stance.
Therefore when you doubt X, it is as if you are going from a 100% action-stance of X, to a noticeably less than 100% action-stance of X.
In other words, doubting whether something is true, is equivalent to partly deciding to not act in accordance with believing it is true. (Or some even fuzzier version of this.)
(See also the “Nihilism, existentialism, absurdism” bullet point here https://tsvibt.blogspot.com/2022/11/do-humans-derive-values-from-fictitious.html )
Ok, so that’s the explanation. Now an answer blob to
Basically the idea is: A reverence / awe / fear of doubt. Which isn’t to say “don’t doubt”, but more to say “consider doubting to be a journey; the stronger, newer, and more foundational the doubt, the longer and more difficult the journey”. Or something.
A more general thing in this answer-blob is a respect for cognitive labor; and an attitude of not “biting off more than you can chew”. Like, I think normies pretty often will, in response to some challenge on some ideational point, just say something to the effect of “huh, interesting, yeah IDK, that’s not the sort of thing I would try to think through, but sounds cool”. A LW-coded person doesn’t say that nearly as much / nearly as naturally. I’m not sure what the suggestion should be because it can’t be “don’t think things through in uncommon detail / depth” or “don’t take ideas seriously” or “don’t believe in your ability to think through difficult stuff”, but it would be like “thought is difficult, some thoughts are really big and difficult and would take a long time, sometimes code refactors get bogged down and whole projects die in development hell; be light and nimble with your cognitive investments”.
(Speaking of development hell, that might be a nice metaphier for some manic mental states.)
Cf. the passage from Descartes’s Discourse on Method, part three:
( https://grattoncourses.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/rene-descartes-discourse-on-method-and-meditations-on-first-philosophy-4th-ed-hackett-pub-co-1998.pdf )