I have found, on the other hand, that viewing things in black and white is a tremendous aid to practical learning. The fool who persists in his folly will become wise, and he who follows a rule of thumb will find the exceptions soon enough.
That’s what I like to implement in practice too.
I don’t disagree with you here particularly, just acknowledge that there is a coherent value system for which the consequences of rationalizing differ in nature as well as degree to the consequences of what (who was it you were discussing with again?) described as ‘rationalizing’. The way I would descibe (whatsisnames) ‘rationalizing’ in your language would be to use what is basically unconscious mind hacking techniques to actually release the desire for the particular thing by actually sincerely integrating the ‘rationalization’.
The way I would descibe (whatsisnames) ‘rationalizing’ in your language would be to use what is basically unconscious mind hacking techniques to actually release the desire for the particular thing by actually sincerely integrating the ‘rationalization’.
In which case, we’re indeed quibbling about terminology again.
And still quibbling, because what falls under my definition of “rationalization” is something that wouldn’t be able to be directly processed by the emotional side of the brain, which doesn’t process logic, only connections like “X good” and “Y bad”.
The only way you get that side to agree with the “rationalizing” side is if the rationalizing side uses its logic to construct imagined scenarios that the emotional brain can reduce to simple association.
(Which, by and large, is what all forms of mind hacking and persuasion are—using logic to paint pretty pictures for the emotional brain. Or more effectively, using logic to get the emotional brain to paint its own pictures and draw appropriate conclusions from them, since the brain usually puts up less of a fight against the conclusions it draws from unconscious inference than it does from those obtained by conscious inference or explicit statement.)
The only way you get that side to agree with the “rationalizing” side is if the rationalizing side uses its logic to construct imagined scenarios that the emotional brain can reduce to simple association.
Some people are fotunate to have wiring that makes this process more or less automatic whenever they rationalise. All else being equal such individuals may be expected to be more content in a given circumstance but less likely to achieve grand things (that are probably unnecessary for their own emotional wellbeing). I think it would be bad thing if, say, Eliezer had a natural knack for satisfying his emotional brain with this sort of rationalization. (And this may well be a claim that you disagree with.)
I think that you are still using sufficiently different terms from me that a discussion isn’t really possible without further definition of terms.
Perhaps you should taboo “rationalize”, so I can see if you have a precise and consistent unpacking for that term—as far as I can see, your definition for it appears much more vague, broad, and less technical than my own.
I have a very narrow and precise meaning in mind for it, and if I substitute it into your comment, your comment appears nonsensical, in the manner of tree/forest/sound arguments with an alternate expansion of “sound”.
I think that you are still using sufficiently different terms from me that a discussion isn’t really possible without further definition of terms.
I don’t think either of us care enough to bother with that just now. For my part (as is rather common) I was just backing up some other guy on a specific point and mostly agree with you.
Where (I think) there may be potential for an interesting discussion in the future is just how often the ‘negative’ emotional adaptions apply to (even) the current environment. Less, obviously, than the EEA but I think we would disagree in how much the ‘negative stuff’ applies here and now. I also suggest a relevant selection effect. We pay attention to the consequences of things like anger, rationalization, denial and even (though I’m extremely hesitant to conceede this one) shame mostly when they are maladaptive. When they are actually working to benefit us we don’t think about them (or bother to go get help from mind hacking instructors).
As you say, it is the sort of thing where precise definition of the terms is necessary. When (and if) I choose (get around) to publishing any of the rough drafts of posts I have laying around there are a couple that touch on this kind of area and I have no doubt you could provide a useful critique!
That’s what I like to implement in practice too.
I don’t disagree with you here particularly, just acknowledge that there is a coherent value system for which the consequences of rationalizing differ in nature as well as degree to the consequences of what (who was it you were discussing with again?) described as ‘rationalizing’. The way I would descibe (whatsisnames) ‘rationalizing’ in your language would be to use what is basically unconscious mind hacking techniques to actually release the desire for the particular thing by actually sincerely integrating the ‘rationalization’.
In which case, we’re indeed quibbling about terminology again.
And still quibbling, because what falls under my definition of “rationalization” is something that wouldn’t be able to be directly processed by the emotional side of the brain, which doesn’t process logic, only connections like “X good” and “Y bad”.
The only way you get that side to agree with the “rationalizing” side is if the rationalizing side uses its logic to construct imagined scenarios that the emotional brain can reduce to simple association.
(Which, by and large, is what all forms of mind hacking and persuasion are—using logic to paint pretty pictures for the emotional brain. Or more effectively, using logic to get the emotional brain to paint its own pictures and draw appropriate conclusions from them, since the brain usually puts up less of a fight against the conclusions it draws from unconscious inference than it does from those obtained by conscious inference or explicit statement.)
Some people are fotunate to have wiring that makes this process more or less automatic whenever they rationalise. All else being equal such individuals may be expected to be more content in a given circumstance but less likely to achieve grand things (that are probably unnecessary for their own emotional wellbeing). I think it would be bad thing if, say, Eliezer had a natural knack for satisfying his emotional brain with this sort of rationalization. (And this may well be a claim that you disagree with.)
I think that you are still using sufficiently different terms from me that a discussion isn’t really possible without further definition of terms.
Perhaps you should taboo “rationalize”, so I can see if you have a precise and consistent unpacking for that term—as far as I can see, your definition for it appears much more vague, broad, and less technical than my own.
I have a very narrow and precise meaning in mind for it, and if I substitute it into your comment, your comment appears nonsensical, in the manner of tree/forest/sound arguments with an alternate expansion of “sound”.
I don’t think either of us care enough to bother with that just now. For my part (as is rather common) I was just backing up some other guy on a specific point and mostly agree with you.
Where (I think) there may be potential for an interesting discussion in the future is just how often the ‘negative’ emotional adaptions apply to (even) the current environment. Less, obviously, than the EEA but I think we would disagree in how much the ‘negative stuff’ applies here and now. I also suggest a relevant selection effect. We pay attention to the consequences of things like anger, rationalization, denial and even (though I’m extremely hesitant to conceede this one) shame mostly when they are maladaptive. When they are actually working to benefit us we don’t think about them (or bother to go get help from mind hacking instructors).
As you say, it is the sort of thing where precise definition of the terms is necessary. When (and if) I choose (get around) to publishing any of the rough drafts of posts I have laying around there are a couple that touch on this kind of area and I have no doubt you could provide a useful critique!