This is a special case of a general principle: the only way to know that you don’t secretly want X, desire X, or value X, is if you would be able to admit to yourself that you do want/desire/value X, in worlds where you really do. If the possibility feels too painful to face, then you can’t rule the possibility out.
i think you have a silly and wrong view of values where there is some pre-thought pre-determined secret given wanting/desiring/valuing/[utility function] that can somehow be “directly accessed”. really, your values are thoughtfully given — or more precisely your actions are properly guided by a process involving rich ethical thought — and it is in particular just completely fine for you to end up not wanting X (in every sense relevant to action) because you are blocked from this by it being really painful to contemplate the possibility that you’d want X. there’s no “you really do want X” that is somehow mysteriously already given before thinking about a question. i guess you could try to put yourself in some sort of specific state and try to access some sort of feeling there, but i see no reason to attribute this profound special significance to that
imagine a guy whose telopheme says (among other things) “you do not want X” and a guy whose supposed-telopheme says (among other things) “you want X” but then there is a totally-different-mechanism-bro on top of the telopheme that adds “do not” to this sentence, with this happening before this sentence in the supposed-telopheme starts affecting the rest of this guy’s thinking. i think the second guy is just completely fine compared to the first guy? there’s nothing special about the supposed-telopheme, no reason for special interest in it. “look deeply at your TRUE feelings for the truth bro, listen to your HEART’S DESIRE” is just some value-flattening woo woo nonsense :P[1]
In order to know your own wants, desires, or values, you need to be ready to face the possibility that they’re not the wants, desires, or values you thought you had, wished you had, or were told you were supposed to have.
of course what values you wish to have affects (and should affect) what values you have! it’s also fine and proper for what values you’re supposed to have for eg your family or friends or community to affect what values you have! again, there is no secret thing there already given before thinking (including even communal thinking with other people) gets started, and these are fine forms of ethical thought
however there is some sort of “being honest with yourself and contemplating options open-mindedly is pro tanto good” here that i agree with, but as basically an ethical principle, not a meta-ethical fact
a postscript for fun: i personally find it a fairly simple mental exercise to feel sexual attraction to like basically anything, like including mathematical objects (stellated dodecahedron, anyone? alexander horned sphere? there’s some fine shape rotation exercises here), scientific theories, historical events, cultures, etc.. i’d guess that most smart people could do this if they had seriously practiced being thoughtful about their thinking when they were still able to learn. i’m almost completely uninterested in what some primordial default setting for sexual attraction is, and i don’t see any reason to revert to it. i don’t see any reason to take whatever the current setting happens to be very seriously either. i consider this a sort of silly barbaric thing to be overwritten with little concern, not a deep ethical wellspring. (however i also don’t consider it wrong if someone, as a personal ethical principle, takes this to be more of a protected source of ethical guidance. (however i do consider it a serious ethical mistake to put this on a pedestal, even only in one’s personal ethical thought.))
also i don’t think valuing works at all like this telopheme picture (or at least any non-galaxybrained implementation of it) anyway — i just think of it as a simple toy model in which the point i want to make can already be made
i think you have a silly and wrong view of values where there is some pre-thought pre-determined secret given wanting/desiring/valuing/[utility function] that can somehow be “directly accessed”. really, your values are thoughtfully given — or more precisely your actions are properly guided by a process involving rich ethical thought — and it is in particular just completely fine for you to end up not wanting X (in every sense relevant to action) because you are blocked from this by it being really painful to contemplate the possibility that you’d want X. there’s no “you really do want X” that is somehow mysteriously already given before thinking about a question. i guess you could try to put yourself in some sort of specific state and try to access some sort of feeling there, but i see no reason to attribute this profound special significance to that
imagine a guy whose telopheme says (among other things) “you do not want X” and a guy whose supposed-telopheme says (among other things) “you want X” but then there is a totally-different-mechanism-bro on top of the telopheme that adds “do not” to this sentence, with this happening before this sentence in the supposed-telopheme starts affecting the rest of this guy’s thinking. i think the second guy is just completely fine compared to the first guy? there’s nothing special about the supposed-telopheme, no reason for special interest in it. “look deeply at your TRUE feelings for the truth bro, listen to your HEART’S DESIRE” is just some value-flattening woo woo nonsense :P [1]
of course what values you wish to have affects (and should affect) what values you have! it’s also fine and proper for what values you’re supposed to have for eg your family or friends or community to affect what values you have! again, there is no secret thing there already given before thinking (including even communal thinking with other people) gets started, and these are fine forms of ethical thought
(here’s another comment where i make the same point)
however there is some sort of “being honest with yourself and contemplating options open-mindedly is pro tanto good” here that i agree with, but as basically an ethical principle, not a meta-ethical fact
a postscript for fun: i personally find it a fairly simple mental exercise to feel sexual attraction to like basically anything, like including mathematical objects (stellated dodecahedron, anyone? alexander horned sphere? there’s some fine shape rotation exercises here), scientific theories, historical events, cultures, etc.. i’d guess that most smart people could do this if they had seriously practiced being thoughtful about their thinking when they were still able to learn. i’m almost completely uninterested in what some primordial default setting for sexual attraction is, and i don’t see any reason to revert to it. i don’t see any reason to take whatever the current setting happens to be very seriously either. i consider this a sort of silly barbaric thing to be overwritten with little concern, not a deep ethical wellspring. (however i also don’t consider it wrong if someone, as a personal ethical principle, takes this to be more of a protected source of ethical guidance. (however i do consider it a serious ethical mistake to put this on a pedestal, even only in one’s personal ethical thought.))
also i don’t think valuing works at all like this telopheme picture (or at least any non-galaxybrained implementation of it) anyway — i just think of it as a simple toy model in which the point i want to make can already be made