If everyone had the time and inclination and motivation to become perfectly controlled, calm yet fast acting under pressure jedi types then could well come a time where emotional reactions are not useful. But until that time emotional reactions tend to be a good baseline to start from. Then, in those instances in which they don’t work satisfactorily, debug them with conscious intervention.
There seems to be an implicit assumption here that you would have to be “controlled”, but what I’ve been talking about is eliminating the need for control, by simply altering whatever mental association is making you have something to control. Emotions aren’t something that just happen due to environmental conditions; mostly, they require a learned pairing to be triggered, and those pairings can be altered.
For example, if you thought that Santa Claus existed, and then later realized he didn’t, a whole bunch of emotional triggers got switched off automatically as soon as you realized this. You did not need to become a “trained jedi” to stop the emotion of wanting to wait up and see Santa—you simply didn’t have the reaction any more.
I’m going to stop the discussion here, though, because you still haven’t identified with any specificity whatsoever what sort of situations you’re talking about. I have only the vaguest idea, and assume you are talking about some sort of corporate-politic machinations, so I’m using my own experiences as a guide.
In my own experiences, however, I cannot recall any situation where someone was positively served by an immediate negative emotional reaction to anything—the game always went to people who could calmly spin any situation to their strategic advantage.
However, I’m also thinking of situations primarily where objective standards of performance were also involved, and were ultimately the most important thing. I could imagine that in situations of total politics and no objective standards, perhaps some other case could exist. I just cannot (yet) imagine what that would look like.
So, that means we’re going to keep talking past one another in this area unless you give me a specific example of a situation where you think an instinctual negative reaction would help a person’s real goals. Otherwise, we’re just handwaving different priors.
More importantly, it means that you actually have to admit to yourself what you really want. This isn’t something most people are willing to do.
Perhaps this is the point of confusion: I’m not talking about most people. I’m talking about people who claim to be rationalists. If you’re a rationalist, admitting to yourself what you really want should be at the top of your frickin’ to-do list. ;-)
And really, that’s been my point in this thread from the get-go. Know what you want, then self-modify according to what will get you what you want.
Perhaps this is the point of confusion: I’m not talking about most people. I’m talking about people who claim to be rationalists. If you’re a rationalist, admitting to yourself what you really want should be at the top of your frickin’ to-do list. ;-)
And really, that’s been my point in this thread from the get-go. Know what you want, then self-modify according to what will get you what you want.
On this we are in total agreement!
On the other parts we would be rehashing the same old ‘built in instincts’ vs ‘learned emotional associations’ debate. We tend to agree that regardless of how they got there, the emotional triggers can certainly be modified by training (hacking).
We may have some difference in our predictions on how useful instinctive negative emotional responses to complex status risks can be for naive subjects. We seem to agree that there is always benefit to be had (neglecting opportunity cost) in replacing those emotional reactions with more finely tuned proactive habits. I’m not sure how we calibrate our respective ‘opportunity cost’ vs benefit functions over various cases of potential hacking. One would expect from our respective roles that you would on average predict a higher benefit/‘opportunity cost’ value than I!
(Naturally, this is my reading of our respective positions and subject to correction if I read you wrong.)
I’m not sure how we calibrate our respective ‘opportunity cost’ vs benefit functions over various cases of potential hacking. One would expect from our respective roles that you would on average predict a higher benefit/‘opportunity cost’ value than I!
And that’s mainly because I predict a much lower cost to changing than you do, as you seem to replace any mention of self-modification with references to “training”. Training, however, is an exceptionally costly form of self-modification by comparison.
Getting rid of a hot button does not require training; it simply requires awareness and reinterpretation of a situation, akin to my earlier example of realizing there’s no Santa Claus. When the right part of your brain “gets” that there’s no Santa Claus, the emotion simply stops. Training is not required, except for the one-time investment to develop the skill to intentionally perform such modifications.
Thus, I anticipate a much lower cost to changing responses than you. In fact, I consider it so much cheaper, that my routine attitude towards anything I feel bad about is to first remove that reaction.
And usually, the immediate result of removing the reaction is that I spontaneously think of a much better solution to whatever outside-world problem I’m encountering, than anything I could think of while still “under the influence” of the negative emotion.
And, this extends to people-problems as well as logistical problems: I find my brain models other people better when it’s not busy being obsessed with a perceived threat to me!
Anyway, given my extremely low cost to self-modifying, you can see why I’d view it as borderline insane not to do it at the drop of a hat (or the push of a berserk button).
(Of course, you could argue that I’ve already invested so much into becoming a person who can self-modify so easily, but then, it’s not as if there isn’t plenty of other payoff to even up that score.)
There seems to be an implicit assumption here that you would have to be “controlled”, but what I’ve been talking about is eliminating the need for control, by simply altering whatever mental association is making you have something to control. Emotions aren’t something that just happen due to environmental conditions; mostly, they require a learned pairing to be triggered, and those pairings can be altered.
For example, if you thought that Santa Claus existed, and then later realized he didn’t, a whole bunch of emotional triggers got switched off automatically as soon as you realized this. You did not need to become a “trained jedi” to stop the emotion of wanting to wait up and see Santa—you simply didn’t have the reaction any more.
I’m going to stop the discussion here, though, because you still haven’t identified with any specificity whatsoever what sort of situations you’re talking about. I have only the vaguest idea, and assume you are talking about some sort of corporate-politic machinations, so I’m using my own experiences as a guide.
In my own experiences, however, I cannot recall any situation where someone was positively served by an immediate negative emotional reaction to anything—the game always went to people who could calmly spin any situation to their strategic advantage.
However, I’m also thinking of situations primarily where objective standards of performance were also involved, and were ultimately the most important thing. I could imagine that in situations of total politics and no objective standards, perhaps some other case could exist. I just cannot (yet) imagine what that would look like.
So, that means we’re going to keep talking past one another in this area unless you give me a specific example of a situation where you think an instinctual negative reaction would help a person’s real goals. Otherwise, we’re just handwaving different priors.
Perhaps this is the point of confusion: I’m not talking about most people. I’m talking about people who claim to be rationalists. If you’re a rationalist, admitting to yourself what you really want should be at the top of your frickin’ to-do list. ;-)
And really, that’s been my point in this thread from the get-go. Know what you want, then self-modify according to what will get you what you want.
On this we are in total agreement!
On the other parts we would be rehashing the same old ‘built in instincts’ vs ‘learned emotional associations’ debate. We tend to agree that regardless of how they got there, the emotional triggers can certainly be modified by training (hacking).
We may have some difference in our predictions on how useful instinctive negative emotional responses to complex status risks can be for naive subjects. We seem to agree that there is always benefit to be had (neglecting opportunity cost) in replacing those emotional reactions with more finely tuned proactive habits. I’m not sure how we calibrate our respective ‘opportunity cost’ vs benefit functions over various cases of potential hacking. One would expect from our respective roles that you would on average predict a higher benefit/‘opportunity cost’ value than I!
(Naturally, this is my reading of our respective positions and subject to correction if I read you wrong.)
And that’s mainly because I predict a much lower cost to changing than you do, as you seem to replace any mention of self-modification with references to “training”. Training, however, is an exceptionally costly form of self-modification by comparison.
Getting rid of a hot button does not require training; it simply requires awareness and reinterpretation of a situation, akin to my earlier example of realizing there’s no Santa Claus. When the right part of your brain “gets” that there’s no Santa Claus, the emotion simply stops. Training is not required, except for the one-time investment to develop the skill to intentionally perform such modifications.
Thus, I anticipate a much lower cost to changing responses than you. In fact, I consider it so much cheaper, that my routine attitude towards anything I feel bad about is to first remove that reaction.
And usually, the immediate result of removing the reaction is that I spontaneously think of a much better solution to whatever outside-world problem I’m encountering, than anything I could think of while still “under the influence” of the negative emotion.
And, this extends to people-problems as well as logistical problems: I find my brain models other people better when it’s not busy being obsessed with a perceived threat to me!
Anyway, given my extremely low cost to self-modifying, you can see why I’d view it as borderline insane not to do it at the drop of a hat (or the push of a berserk button).
(Of course, you could argue that I’ve already invested so much into becoming a person who can self-modify so easily, but then, it’s not as if there isn’t plenty of other payoff to even up that score.)