If you consciously steer the entire dialogue you will not get as much out of it—then you’re just writing self-insert fanfiction about the workings of your brain, not actually learning about it.
That reminds me a bit of PJ Eby’s list of ways people sometimes do his RMI technique wrong. (PJ, if you’re reading this, would you mind if I posted it? I’m referring to the list from page 55 of TTD. I know RMI isn’t exactly the same as what Alicorn is talking about, but I think they’re probably invoking related or identical mental processes, and some of your tips on not messing it up seem like they’d be helpful here.)
That reminds me a bit of PJ Eby’s list of ways people sometimes do his RMI technique wrong. (PJ, if you’re reading this, would you mind if I posted it? I’m referring to the list from page 55 of TTD
That’s fine; I’ve posted a similar list here previously, too.
I know RMI isn’t exactly the same as what Alicorn is talking about,
It’s sort of the same, in that the same basic mental state applies. It’s simply a question of utilization.
My model differs in that I assume there are really only two “parts” to speak of:
The “near” brain, composed of a network of possibly-conflicting interests, and a warehouse of mental/physical motor programs, classified by context and expected effects on important variables (such as SASS-derived variables).
The logical, confabulating, abstract, verbal “far” brain… whose main role sometimes seems to be to try to distract you from actually observing your motivations!
Anyway, the near brain doesn’t have a personality—it embodies personalities, and can play whatever role you can remember or imagine. That’s why I consider the exercise a waste of time in the general case, even though there are useful ways to do role-playing. If you simply play roles, you run the risk of simply confabulating, because your brain can play any role, whether it’s related to what you actually do or not.
And it’s not so much that it’s fanfiction, per se (as it would be if you use only the “far” brain to write the dialogs).. What you roleplay is real, in the sense that you are using the same equipment (if you’re doing it right) that also plays the role of your “normal” personality! The near brain can play any role you want it to, so you are already corrupting the state of what you’re trying to inspect by bringing roles into it in the first place.
IOW, it’s a (relative) waste of time to have elaborate dialogs about your internal conflicts, even though there’s a very good chance you’ll stumble onto insights that will lead to you fixing things, from time to time.
In effect, self-anthropomorphism is like spending time talking to chatbots, when what you need to do is directly inspect their source code and pull out their goal lists.
The things that seem to be “parts” or “personalities” are really just roles that you can play—like mimicking a close friend or pretending to be Yoda or Darth Vader. You’re essentially putting costumes on yourself and acting things out, rather than simply inspecting the raw material these roles are based on.
To put it another way, instead of pretending to be Darth Vader, what you want to be inspecting are the life events of Anakin Skywalker… unpleasant though that may be. ;-) (And even as unpleasant as it may be to watch little Ani’s traumas, it’s probably safer than asking to have a sit-down with Vader himself...)
So, the point of inner dialoging (IMO) is to identify those interests that are based on outdated attempts to seek SASS (Status, Affiliation, Safety, or Stimulation) in contexts where the desired behavior will not actually bring you those things, so you can surface that and drop the mental rules that link SASS threats to a desired behavior, or SASS rewards to an undesired one.
(That, I guess would be the alchemy/chemistry distinction that Roko was alluding to previously.)
I agree. I worry that anthropomorphising these conflicting thoughts just strengthens the divide.
I like your comment “All this has very little to do with actual agency or the workings of akrasia, though, and tends to interfere with the process of a person owning up to the goals that they want to dissociate from. By pretending it’s another agency that wants to surf the net, you get to maintain moral superiority… and still hang onto your problem. The goal of virtually any therapy that involves multiple agencies, is to integrate them, but the typical person on getting hold of the metaphor uses is to maintain the separation.”
I know RMI isn’t exactly the same as what Alicorn is talking about, but I think they’re probably invoking related or identical mental processes, and some of your tips on not messing it up seem like they’d be helpful here.)
I think the mental processes invoked are likely related or identical too, but watch out! ;)
That reminds me a bit of PJ Eby’s list of ways people sometimes do his RMI technique wrong. (PJ, if you’re reading this, would you mind if I posted it? I’m referring to the list from page 55 of TTD. I know RMI isn’t exactly the same as what Alicorn is talking about, but I think they’re probably invoking related or identical mental processes, and some of your tips on not messing it up seem like they’d be helpful here.)
That’s fine; I’ve posted a similar list here previously, too.
It’s sort of the same, in that the same basic mental state applies. It’s simply a question of utilization.
My model differs in that I assume there are really only two “parts” to speak of:
The “near” brain, composed of a network of possibly-conflicting interests, and a warehouse of mental/physical motor programs, classified by context and expected effects on important variables (such as SASS-derived variables).
The logical, confabulating, abstract, verbal “far” brain… whose main role sometimes seems to be to try to distract you from actually observing your motivations!
Anyway, the near brain doesn’t have a personality—it embodies personalities, and can play whatever role you can remember or imagine. That’s why I consider the exercise a waste of time in the general case, even though there are useful ways to do role-playing. If you simply play roles, you run the risk of simply confabulating, because your brain can play any role, whether it’s related to what you actually do or not.
And it’s not so much that it’s fanfiction, per se (as it would be if you use only the “far” brain to write the dialogs).. What you roleplay is real, in the sense that you are using the same equipment (if you’re doing it right) that also plays the role of your “normal” personality! The near brain can play any role you want it to, so you are already corrupting the state of what you’re trying to inspect by bringing roles into it in the first place.
IOW, it’s a (relative) waste of time to have elaborate dialogs about your internal conflicts, even though there’s a very good chance you’ll stumble onto insights that will lead to you fixing things, from time to time.
In effect, self-anthropomorphism is like spending time talking to chatbots, when what you need to do is directly inspect their source code and pull out their goal lists.
The things that seem to be “parts” or “personalities” are really just roles that you can play—like mimicking a close friend or pretending to be Yoda or Darth Vader. You’re essentially putting costumes on yourself and acting things out, rather than simply inspecting the raw material these roles are based on.
To put it another way, instead of pretending to be Darth Vader, what you want to be inspecting are the life events of Anakin Skywalker… unpleasant though that may be. ;-) (And even as unpleasant as it may be to watch little Ani’s traumas, it’s probably safer than asking to have a sit-down with Vader himself...)
So, the point of inner dialoging (IMO) is to identify those interests that are based on outdated attempts to seek SASS (Status, Affiliation, Safety, or Stimulation) in contexts where the desired behavior will not actually bring you those things, so you can surface that and drop the mental rules that link SASS threats to a desired behavior, or SASS rewards to an undesired one.
(That, I guess would be the alchemy/chemistry distinction that Roko was alluding to previously.)
I agree. I worry that anthropomorphising these conflicting thoughts just strengthens the divide.
I like your comment “All this has very little to do with actual agency or the workings of akrasia, though, and tends to interfere with the process of a person owning up to the goals that they want to dissociate from. By pretending it’s another agency that wants to surf the net, you get to maintain moral superiority… and still hang onto your problem. The goal of virtually any therapy that involves multiple agencies, is to integrate them, but the typical person on getting hold of the metaphor uses is to maintain the separation.”
I think the mental processes invoked are likely related or identical too, but watch out! ;)