Goal: Find motivation through truth-seeking rather than coercion or self-deception
Ideally: the urges are aligned with the high-level goals
Turn “wanting to want” into “want”
If a person has simultaneously conflicting beliefs and desires, then one of those is wrong.
[Comment from myself: I find this, as stated, not evidently true since desires often do not have a “ground truth” due to the orthogonality thesis. However, even if there is a conflict between subsystems, the productive way forward is usually to find a common path in a values handshake. This is how I interpret conflicting desires to be “wrong”]
Understanding “shoulds”
If you call some urges “lazy”, then you spend energy on a conflict
If you ignore your urges, then part of you is not “focused” on the activity, making it less worthwhile
Acknowledge your conflicting desires: “I have a belief that it’s good to run and I have a belief that it’s good to watch Netflix”
The different parts aren’t right or wrong; they have tunnel vision, not seeing the value of the other desire
Shoulds: When there is a default action, there is often a sense that you “should” have done something else. If you would have done this “something else”, then the default action becomes the “should” and the situation is reversed.
View shoulds as “data” that is useful for making better conclusions
The IDC Algorithm (with an example in the article)
Recommendation: Do not tweak the structure of IDC before having tried it a few times
Step 0: Find an internal disagreement
Identify a “should” that’s counter to a default action
Step 1: Draw two dots on a piece of paper and name them with the subagents representing the different positions
Choose appropriate names/handles that don’t favor one side over the other
Step 2: Decide who speaks first (it might be the side with more “urgency”)
Say one thing embodied from that perspective
Maybe use Focusing to check that the words resonate
Step 3: Get the other side to acknowledge truth.
Let it find something true in the statement or derived from it
Step 4: The second side also adds “one thing”
Be open in general about the means of communication of the sides; they may also scribble something, express a feeling, or …
Step 5: Repeat
Notes:
It’s okay for some sides to “blow off steam” once in a while and not follow the rules; if so, correct that after the fact from a “moderation standpoint”
You may write down “moderator interjections” with another color
Eventually, you might realize the disagreement to be about something else.
This can give clarity on the “internal generators” of conflict
If so, start a new piece of paper with two new debaters
Ideally, the different parts understand each other better, leading them to stop getting into conflict since they respect each other’s values
Summary
Goal: Find motivation through truth-seeking rather than coercion or self-deception
Ideally: the urges are aligned with the high-level goals
Turn “wanting to want” into “want”
If a person has simultaneously conflicting beliefs and desires, then one of those is wrong.
[Comment from myself: I find this, as stated, not evidently true since desires often do not have a “ground truth” due to the orthogonality thesis. However, even if there is a conflict between subsystems, the productive way forward is usually to find a common path in a values handshake. This is how I interpret conflicting desires to be “wrong”]
Understanding “shoulds”
If you call some urges “lazy”, then you spend energy on a conflict
If you ignore your urges, then part of you is not “focused” on the activity, making it less worthwhile
Acknowledge your conflicting desires: “I have a belief that it’s good to run and I have a belief that it’s good to watch Netflix”
The different parts aren’t right or wrong; they have tunnel vision, not seeing the value of the other desire
Shoulds: When there is a default action, there is often a sense that you “should” have done something else. If you would have done this “something else”, then the default action becomes the “should” and the situation is reversed.
View shoulds as “data” that is useful for making better conclusions
The IDC Algorithm (with an example in the article)
Recommendation: Do not tweak the structure of IDC before having tried it a few times
Step 0: Find an internal disagreement
Identify a “should” that’s counter to a default action
Step 1: Draw two dots on a piece of paper and name them with the subagents representing the different positions
Choose appropriate names/handles that don’t favor one side over the other
Step 2: Decide who speaks first (it might be the side with more “urgency”)
Say one thing embodied from that perspective
Maybe use Focusing to check that the words resonate
Step 3: Get the other side to acknowledge truth.
Let it find something true in the statement or derived from it
Step 4: The second side also adds “one thing”
Be open in general about the means of communication of the sides; they may also scribble something, express a feeling, or …
Step 5: Repeat
Notes:
It’s okay for some sides to “blow off steam” once in a while and not follow the rules; if so, correct that after the fact from a “moderation standpoint”
You may write down “moderator interjections” with another color
Eventually, you might realize the disagreement to be about something else.
This can give clarity on the “internal generators” of conflict
If so, start a new piece of paper with two new debaters
Ideally, the different parts understand each other better, leading them to stop getting into conflict since they respect each other’s values