Over on Facebook (I don’t know if it’s possible to link to a Facebook post, but h/t Alexander Kruel) and Twitter, the subject of missing qualia has come up. Some people are color-blind. This deficiency can be objectively demonstrated by tasks such as the Ishihara patterns
Lacking the ability to distinguish colors well means your brain does not know which qualia to use, not that it doesn’t have all of the qualia available. I’m red/green color blind (according to the tests, and difficulty determining the color of small things), but I have very distinct red and green qualia. Most of the time my experience feels like “I’m unsure if this line is red or green”, which is different than “this line is red-green, as there is not actually a difference between the thing people call ‘red’ and the thing people call ‘green’”.
However, I have also had the experience of having red text show up as bright green and then switch on me. I was reading part of the sequences back in the day, and I could tell from the context that the word “GREEN” was supposed to be red (stroop tests), but my brain took that as a cue that the text was supposed to be green. When I brought my face closer to the screen to check, the text flipped to red. When I backed up it returned to green. In between, individual pieces of each letter would start to flip color.
Okay, I thought that might be the case but I wasn’t sure because the way it was worded made it sound like the first interaction was real. (“You can see I was showing off my mastery of basic economics.” doesn’t have any “[in this hypothetical]” clarification and “This seemed like a good move to me at the time” also seems like something that could happen in real life but an unusual choice for a hypothetical).To clarify though, it’s not quite “doubt that it’s sufficiently realistic”. Where your simulated conversation differs from my experience is easily explained by differing subcommunication and preexisting relationships, so it’s not “it doesn’t work this way” but “it doesn’t *have to* work this way”. The other part of it is that even if the transcript was exactly something that happened, I don’t see any satisfying resolution. If it ended in “Huh, I guess I didn’t actually have any coherent point after all”, it would be much stronger evidence that they didn’t actually have a coherent point—even if the conversation were entirely fictional but plausible.
1) There is a risk in looking at concrete examples before understanding the relevant abstractions. Your Uber example relies on the fact that you can both look at his concrete example and know you’re seeing the same thing. This condition does not always hold, as often the wrong details jump out as salient.
To give a toy example, if I were to use the examples “King cobra, Black mamba” to contrast with “Boa constrictor, Anaconda” you’d probably see “Ah, I get it! Venomous snakes vs non-venomous snakes”, but that’s not the distinction I’m thinking of so now I have to be more careful with my selection of examples. I could say “King cobra, Reticulated python” vs “Rattlesnake, Anaconda”, but now you’re just going to say “I don’t get it” (or worse yet, you might notice “Ah, Asia vs the Americas!”). At some point you just have to stop the guessing game, say “live young vs laying eggs”, and only get back to the concrete examples once they know where to be looking and why the other details aren’t relevant. Anything you have to teach which is sufficiently different from the persons pre-existing world view is necessarily going to require the abstractions first. Even when you have concrete real life experiences that this person has gone through themselves, they will simply fail to recognize what is happening to them. Your conclusion “I showed three specific guesses of what Michael’s advice could mean for Drew, but we have no idea what it does mean, if anything.” is kinda the point. When you’re learning new ways of looking at things, you’re not going to immediately be able to cache them out into specific predictions. Noticing this is an important step that must come before evaluating predictions for accuracy if you’re going to evaluate reliably. You do have to be able to get specific eventually, or else the new abstractions won’t have any way to provide value, but “more specificity” isn’t always the best next step.2) It seems like the main function you have for “can you give me a concrete example” is to force coherence by highlighting the gaps. Asking for concrete examples is one way of doing this, but it is not required. All you really need for that is a desire to understand how their worldview works, and you can do this in the abstract as well. You can ask “Can you give me a concrete example?”, but you could also ask “What do you think of the argument that Uber workers could simply work for McDonald’s instead if Uber isn’t treating them right?”. Their reasoning is in the abstract, and it will have holes in the abstract too.You could even ask “What do you mean by ‘exploits its workers’?”, so long as it’s clear that your intent is to really grok how their worldview works, and not just trying to pick it apart in order to make them look dumb. In fact, your hypothetical example was a bit jarring to me, because “what do you mean by [..]” is exactly the kind of thing I’d ask and “Come on, you know!” isn’t a response I ever get. 3) Am I understanding your post correctly that you’re giving a real-world example of you not using the skill you’re aiming to teach, and then a purely fictional example of you imagine that the conversation would have gone if you had?I’d be very hesitant to accept that you’ve drawn the right conclusion about what is actually going on in people’s heads if you cannot show it with actual conversations and at the very least provoke cognitive dissonance, if not agreement and change. Otherwise, you have a “fictitious evidence” problem, and you’re in essence trusting your analysis rather than actually testing your analysis.
You say “Once you’ve mastered the power of specificity, you’ll see this kind of thing everywhere: a statement that at first sounds full of substance, but then turns out to actually be empty.”, but I don’t see any indication anywhere that you’ve actually ruled out the hypothesis “they actually have something to say, but I’ve failed to find it”.
I wouldn’t interpret Kaj as saying “Go ahead and remember false things for instrumental gain. What could possibly go wrong with that!?”. Truth is obviously important, and allowing oneself to pretend “this looks instrumentally useful to believe, so I can ignore the fact that it’s clearly false” is definitely a recipe for disaster.
What Kaj is saying, I think, is that the possibility of being wrong is not justification for closing ones eyes and not looking. If we attempt to have any beliefs at all, we’re going to be wrong now and then, and the best way to deal with this is to keep this in mind, stay calibrated, and generally look at more rather than less.
It’s not that “recovering memories” is especially error prone, it’s that everything is error prone and people often fail to appreciate how unreliable memory can be because they don’t actually get how it works. If you try to mislead someone and convince them that a certain thing is happened, they might remember “oh, but I could have been mislead” where as if you do the exact same thing but instead you mislead them to think “you remember this happening”, then they now get this false stamp of certainty saying “but I remember it!”.
I think the same is true of NVC. If only one person’s doing it, it’s not going to work very well. It takes two. Some of my best memories are of conversations that took place between myself and somebody else schooled in NVC or something similar. Some of my worst are of applying NVC or similar techniques in a situation where the other person is used to getting their way through domineering or abusive behavior.
Hm. My experience is the opposite. I’ve found the most use in NVC type communication in cases where the other person is getting quite violent, as it can be remarkably disarming to see through the threats and care about the hurt that is driving the person to make them. It can also make it quite difficult for people to continue justifying their domineering and/or abusive behavior to themselves and others, if that’s what they’re doing.
My model of NVC is that’s useful in the way that neutron moderators can be useful. There’s a certain “gain” by which the “violence level” of communications are amplified after being expressed and received, and then having the response expressed and received. If you get multiplied by a number greater than one after going around the loop, things will melt down or explode. If one person is both interpreting and responding uncharitably, the other party is going to have to shoulder more of the burden to “moderate neutrons” and be extra clean in their communications so as to not escalate or allow for escalation. Additional effort to communicate nonviolently is going to make the most difference in the cases where you can actually cross unity. If you’re well below one to start with, then there’s no need. If you can’t get below one even with effort, it’s a bit futile (and therefore frustrating/discouraging).
You seem pretty aware of the failure mode of trying to use neutrality/rationality as an emotional defense mechanism, and how reaching for tools like NVC out of these motivations can lead to stifling of the important emotions that need to be expressed (which, interestingly, necessarily leads to misapplication/cargo culting of the tools). Do you think that could be behind your difficulties in getting good results with NVC in the “one sided” cases? Also, to me, your conversation with your brother looks like a perfect example of using NVC with someone who presumably isn’t trained in NVC to transform things from where they were coming off as domineering/abusive to one where you two are clearly on the same side and working together. Do you conceptualize it differently?
Free soloing is fun for some and not others in large part for reasons like “skill in climbing”, which cannot be expected to hold the same optimal value for different people. Courage, on the other hand, is pretty universally useful, and can help in ways that are not immediately obvious.
It’s not always obvious how things could be better through the exercise of courage for two reasons. First, the application of courage almost inevitably results in an increase of fear (how could it not, since you’re choosing to not flinch away from the fear). If you’re not exceedingly careful, it can be easy to conflate “things got scarier” with “things got objectively worse”. In situations like this, it can often escalate things into explicit threats of violence which are definitely more scary and it can be easy to read “he threatened to fight me” as a turn for the worse. It’s not at all obvious until you follow through that these threats are very very often empty — so often, in fact, that displaying willingness to let things escalate physically can be the safer thing to (at least in my experience it has been).
Secondly, it’s not always clear what one should do with courage. All the courage in the world wouldn’t get me to free solo climb for the same reason it wouldn’t get me to play Russian roulette; it’s just not worth the risk for me. In situations like this, cousin_it suggests responding with “no, you”, but I actually think that’s a mistake. I’d actually advocate doing exactly what habryka did. Say nothing. Don’t back down, of course, but you don’t have to respond and what do you get out of responding other than encouraging that kind of bad behavior? The jerk doesn’t deserve a response.
Of course, it’d be nice to do it with less fear. It’d be nice if instead of seeing fear he sees someone looking at him as if he’s irrelevant and just waiting for him to leave (which is a pretty big punishment, actually, since it makes the aggressor feel foolish for thinking their aggression would have any effect), but that’s an issue of “fear” not “courage”, and you kinda have to accept and run with whatever fear you have since you can’t really address it on the fly.
I wouldn’t say “you should have more courage” both because I don’t see any obvious failure of courage and because you can’t “should” people into courage or out of fear, but I do think courage is an underappreciated virtue to be cultivated, and that the application of courage in cases like these makes life as a whole much more pleasant and less (invisibly and visibly) controlled by fear. This means both holding fast in the moment despite the presence of fear, as well as taking the time to work through your fears in the down time such that you’re more prepared for the next time.
So they’ll cross their fingers rather than demand fair dice. So that they’ll stop trying to fight the war.
Is often not just false, but backwards.
The reason you say “everyone knows Bob is a liar” isn’t always to protect Bob and blame the victims for being fooled. Sometimes it’s to punish Bob, by taking things from the “trial” phase to the “sentencing” phase. So long as “Bob is a liar!” is a thing that needs to be said/argued, Bob is still on trial. Once “everyone knows” Bob is a liar, you can start actually treating him like a liar and trust that people will coordinate with you instead of against you for trying to punish someone whose guilt hasn’t been established.
Things often do get stuck at the stage where (pretty much) everyone knows but no one moves on to doing something about it because they feel they need to keep asserting the thing instead of declaring that it’s worth taking as granted and moving on to dealing with it.
I agree with most of what you say here, but I think you’re over-emphasizing the idea that search deals with unknowns whereas control deals with knows.
There’s uncertainty in both approaches, but it is dealt with differently. In controls, you’ll often use kalman filters to estimate the relevant states. You might not know your exact state because there is noise on all your sensors, and you may have uncertainty in your estimate of the amount of noise, but given your best estimates of the variance, you can calculate the one best estimate of your actual state.
There’s still nothing to search for in the sense of “using our model of our system, try different kalman filter gains and see what works best”, because the math already answered that for you definitively. If you’re searching in the real world (i.e. actually trying different gains and seeing what works best), that can help, but only because you’re getting more information about what your noise distributions are actually like. You can also just measure that directly and then do the math.
With search over purely simulated outcomes, you’re saying essentially “I have uncertainty over how to do the math”, while in control theory you’re essentially saying “I don’t”.
Perhaps a useful analogy would be that of numerical integration vs symbolic integration. You can brute force a decent enough approximation of any integral just by drawing a bunch of little trapezoids and summing them up, and a smart highschooler can write the program to do it. Symbolic integration is much “harder”, but can often give exact solutions and isn’t so hard to compute once you know how to do it.
Why not both?
You can do both. I’m not trying to argue that doing the math and calculating the optimal answer is always the right thing to do (or even feasible/possible).
In the real world, I often do sorta “search through gains” instead of trying to get my analysis perfect or model my meta-uncertainty. Just yesterday, for example, we had some overshoot on the linear actuator we’re working on. Trying to do the math would have been extremely tedious and I likely would have messed it up anyway, but it took about two minutes to just change the values and try it until it worked well. It’s worth noting that “searching” by actually doing experiments is different than “searching” by running simulations, but the latter can make sense too—if engineer time doing control theory is expensive, laptop time running simulations is cheap, and the latter can substitute for the former to some degree.
The point I was making was that the optimal solution is still going to be what control theory says, so if it’s important to you to have the rightest answer with the fewest mistakes, you move away from searching and towards the control theory textbook—not the other way around.
Most of your post is describing situations where you can’t easily solve a control problem with a direct rule, so you spin up a search based on a model of the situation.
I don’t follow this part.
I would agree that a search process in which the cost of evaluation goes to infinity becomes purely a control process: you can’t perform any filtering of possibilities based on evaluation, so, you have to output one possibility and try to make it a good one (with no guarantees).
This is backwards, actually. “Control” isn’t the crummy option you have to resort to when you can’t afford to search. Searching is what you have to resort to when you can’t do control theory.
When your Jacuzzi is at 60f and you want it at 102f, there are a lot of possible heating profiles you could try out. However, you know that no combination of “on off off on on off off on” is going to surprise you by giving a better result than simply leaving the heater on when it’s too cold and off when it’s too hot. Control theory actually can guarantee the optimal results, and with some simple assumptions it’s exactly what it seems like it’d be. Guided missiles do get more complicated than this with all the inertias and significant measurement noise and moving target and all that, but the principle remains the same: compute the best estimate of where you stand relative to the trajectory you want to be on (where “trajectory” includes things like the angular rates of your control surfaces), and then steer your trajectory towards that. There’s just nothing left to search for when you already know the best thing to do.
The reason we ever need to search is because it’s not always obvious when our actions are bringing us towards or away from our desired trajectory. “Searching” is performing trial and error by simulating forward in time until you realize “nope, this leads to a bad outcome” and backing up to before you “made” the mistake and trying something else. For example if you’re trying to cook a meal you might have to get all the way to the finished product before you realized that you started out with too much of one of your ingredients. However, this is a result of not knowing the composition you’re looking for and how your inputs affect it. Once you understand the objective, the process and actuators, and how things project into the future, you know your best guess of where to go at each step. If the water is too cold, you simply turn the heater on.
Searching, then, isn’t just something we do when projecting forward and evaluating outcomes is cheap. It’s what we do when analyzing the problem and building an understanding of how our inputs affect our trajectories (i.e. control theory) is expensive. Or difficult, or impossible.
Or perhaps better put, searching is for when we haven’t yet found what we want and how to get there. Control systems are what we implement once we know.
Not every important concepts has implications which are immediately obvious, and it’s generally worth making space for things which are true even when you can’t yet find the implications. It’s also worth making the post.
That said, one of the biggest implications I draw from this concept is that of “seeking ’no’s”. If you want a “yes”, then often what you can do is go out of your way to make “no” super easy to say, so that the only reason they won’t say “yes” is because “yes” isn’t actually true/in their best interests. A trivial example might be that if you want someone to help you unload your moving truck, giving them the out “I know you’ve got other things you need to do, so if you’re busy I can just hire some people to help” will make it easier to commit to a “yes” and not feel resentful for being asked favors.
More subtly, if you’re interested in “showing someone that they’re wrong”, often it more effective to drop the goal entirely and instead focus on where you might be wrong. If you can ask things with genuine curiosity and intent to learn, people become much more open to sharing their true objections and then noticing when their views may not add up.
“Seeking ’no’s” is a concept that applies everywhere though, and most people don’t do it nearly enough.
You’re right that “feelings are information, not numbers to maximize” and that hiding a user’s posts is often not a good solution because of this.
I don’t think Christian is making this mistake though.
When someone is suffering from an injury they cannot heal, there are two problems, not one. The first is the injury itself — the broken leg, the loss of a relationship, whatever it may be. The second is that incessant alarm saying “THIS IS BAD THIS IS BAD THIS IS BAD” even when there’s nothing you can do.
If you want to help someone in this situation, it’s important to distinguish (and help them distinguish) between the two problem and come to agreement about which one it is that you should be trying to solve: are we trying to fix the injury here, or are we just trying to become more comfortable with the fact that we’re injured? Even asking this question can literally transform the sensation of pain, if the resulting reflection concludes “yeah, there’s nothing else to do about this injury” and “yeah, actually the sensation of pain itself isn’t a problem”.
Earlier in this discussion, Vanessa said “I feel X”, and the response she got was taking the problem to be about the “X” part, and arguing that X is not true. This is a great and satisfying response so long as the perceived problem is definitely “X” and not at all “I feel”. The response wasn’t satisfying though, and she responded by saying that she thought “I feel” was enough to be worth saying.
Since it has already been said that “if the problem is X, we can discuss whether X is actually true, and solve it if it is”, Christian’s contribution was to add “and if it’s not that you think X is actually true and just want help with your feelings, here’s a way that can help”. It’s helpful in the case where Vanessa decides “yes, the problem is primarily the feeling itself, which is maladaptive here”, and it’s also helpful in clarifying (to her and to others) that if she isn’t interested in taking the nerve block, her objection must be a factual claim about X itself, which can then be dealt with as we deal with factual claims (without special regards to feelings, which have been decided to be “not the problem”).
It’s not the most warm and welcoming way to deal with feelings (which may or may not reflect accurate/perceived as accurate upon reflection information), but not every space has to be warm and welcoming. There is a risk of conflating “it helps build community to help people manage their feelings” with “catering to feelings takes precedence over recognizing fact”, and that’s a nasty failure mode to fall into. If we want to manage that rule with a hard and fast “no emotional labor will be supplied here, you must manage your feelings in your own time”, that is a valid approach. And if there is a real threat of that conflation taking over, it’s probably the right one. However, there are better (more pleasant, welcoming/community building, and yes, truth-finding) methods to that we can play with once we’re comfortable that we’re safe from feelings becoming a negative utility monster problem. It’s just that in order to play with them safely, we must be very clear about the distinction between “I feel X, and this is valid evidence which you need to deal with” and “I feel X, and this is my problem, which I would appreciate assistance with even though you’re obviously not obligated to fix it for me”.
[...]but when the whole point of my comment was that jimmy ignored Mary’s substantive point I think it’s obnoxious to then ignore my substantive point about Mary’s substantive point being ignored.
FWIW, “jimmy ignored Mary’s substantive point” is both uncharitable and untrue, and both “making uncharitable and untrue statements as if they were uncontested fact” and “stating that you find things obnoxious in cases where people might disagree about what is appropriate instead of offering an argument as to why it shouldn’t be done” stand out as far more obnoxious to me.
I normally would just ignore it (because again, I think saying “I think that’s obnoxious” is generally obnoxious and unhelpful) but given your comment you’ll probably either find the feedback helpful or else it’ll help you change your mind about whether it’s helpful to call out things one finds to be obnoxious :P
The exact phrasing isn’t important, but conveying the right message is. As Zvi and Ruby note, that “being”/”doing”/etc part is important. “You’re dumb” is not an acceptable alternative because it does not mean the same thing. “Your argument is bad” is also unacceptable because it also means something completely different.
“Your argument is bad” only means “your argument is bad”, and it is possible to go about things in a perfectly reasonable way and still have bad arguments sometimes. It is completely different than a situation where someone is failing to notice problems in their arguments which would be obvious to them if they weren’t engaging in motivated cognition and muddying their own thinking. An inability to think well is quite literally what “dumb” is, and “being dumb” is a literal description of what they’re doing, not a sloppy or motivated attempt to say or pretend to be saying something else.
As far as “then why does it always come out that way”, besides the fact that “you’re being dumb” is far quicker to say than the more neutral “you’re engaging in motivated cognition”, in my experience it doesn’t always or even usually come out that way — and in fact often doesn’t come out at all, which was kinda the point of my original comment.
When it does take that form, there are often good reasons which go beyond “¼ the syllables” and are completely above board, explicit, and agreed upon by both parties. Counter-signalling respect and affection is perhaps the clearest example.
There are examples of people doing it poorly or with hostile and dishonest intent, of course, but the answer to “why do those people do it that way” is a very different question than what was asked.
This is not the test for whether a statement has meaning. If I say “this vaccine you’re getting does not cause autism”, that would be meaningful even if it’s not sometimes false when applied to other vaccines. It has meaning whenever “this vaccine causes autism” describes a different world than “this vaccine does not cause autism”.
It may not convey any information to you if you already know “there are no vaccines about which that statement is false”, but not everyone shares that certainty, and the people who don’t might benefit from reassurance.
This definitely depends on you being right about the “this vaccine doesn’t cause autism” thing, of course. You have to be able to honestly and justifiably state “this vaccine does not cause autism”, as encouraging people to take vaccines under false or unjustified premises is bad. You have to maintain openness to checking the data with them and changing your own mind if you do not find what you expect to find, because if you’ve closed your mind to the data not only does that make your job of persuasion harder, it makes your job of actually being reliably right harder. I’d even go so far as to say that not only should you be willing to put your money where your mouth is, you should even be able to do it *without flinching*. This means being able to put yourself in their shoes and actually experience “okayness” yourself.
Yes, if you can’t do all of these things then you should do something about it before assuring them that it’s okay. However, if you have good reason to believe that the statement is always true, that just means “figure out how to do all these things” is the thing you do about it before assuring them that it’s okay.
The precise phrasing isn’t important, and often “growls” do work. The important part is in knowing that you can safely express your criticisms unfiltered and they’ll be taken for what they’re worth.
To offer a single counterexample, my wife describes herself as being sickeningly nurturing when together with one of her closest friends.
I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. My response in close relationships tends to be both extra combative and extra nurturing, depending on the context.
The extra combativeness comes from common knowledge of respect, as has already been discussed. The extra nurturing is more interesting, and there are multiple things going on.
Telling people when they’re being dumb and having them listen can be important. If those paths haven’t been carved yet, it can be important to say “this is dumb” and prove that you can be reliably right when you say things like that. Doing that productively isn’t trivial, and the fight to get your words respected at full value can get in the way of nurturing. In my close relationships where I can simply say “you’re being dumb” and have them stop and say “oops, what am I missing?” I sometimes do, but I’m also far more likely to be uninterested in saying that because they’ll figure it out soon enough and I actually am curious why they’re doing something seems so deeply mistaken to me. Just like how security in nurturing can allow combativeness, security in combativeness can allow nurturing.
Another thing is that when people gain trust in you to not shit on them when they’re vulnerable, they start opening up more in places in which nurture is the more appropriate response. In these cases it’s not that I’m being nurturing instead of being combative, it’s that I’m being nurturing instead of not having the interaction at all. Relative to the extreme care that’d need to be taken with someone less close in those areas, that high level of nurturing is still more combative.
The times I was able to get people to do things that they felt were too unlikely to commit to were largely about lowering the emotional costs of failure. The context is a bit different, but it seems likely that some of the same factors apply.
Using “writing HPMoR” as an example, there’s more than one thing failure could be taken to mean. One is “I tested a high risk high reward idea, and it didn’t pan out. I learned something useful about what kinds of things I can’t do (right away, at least), and it still strikes me as having been worth attempting, given what I knew at the time. If I keep trying high risk high reward ideas one of them is likely to pay out, because the idea that I’m limited by what social expectations would see as “modest” isn’t even worth taking seriously”. A completely different thing it could mean is “I was arrogant to think I had a chance at this. I learned nothing on the object level because I already knew I couldn’t do it, but on the meta level I learned that I was wrong to set this aside and hope. In hindsight, it was a mistake that never was worth trying in the first place, and if I keep trying high risk high rewards things I’m just going to keep failing because social expectations of what I’m capable of are *right*”. The people with the latter anticipation are going to be less thrilled about flipping that coin with a 50% chance of success because the other 50% hurts a lot more.
The former mindset *sounds* a lot better, and people are going to want to say “yeah, that one sounds right! I believe *that* one!” even when their private thoughts tend towards the latter mindset. If you try to get someone in the latter category to act like they’re in the former category, you’re going to run into motivation problems. You’re going to hear “You’re right, and I want to… I just can’t find the motivation”.
In order to get people to shift from “failure means I should be less confident and try less” to “failure means this particular one didn’t pan out, and it’s still worth trying more”, you have to be able to engage with (and pass the ‘ideological turing test’ of) their impulses to take failure as indicative of a larger problem. There is definitely a skill to this, and it can be tough when you can plainly see that the right answer is to “just try it”. At the same time, it’s a skill that can be learned and it does work for opening things up for change.
I missed this response because I hadn’t found the “someone has replied to your comment” indicator
The question “is it true” is exactly what informs me when I say “I know this fear to be irrational”. I’ve seen situations in which one person is little more than a burden on another, and is still accepted and even taken care of much like one would do with any given loved one regardless of their practical worth. The failure I’m pointing to is that I can completely understand that line of reason, but my intuitive belief seems to be unaffected by it. The update in information created by this test didn’t cascade down into my intuition, which I think is because my intuition is holding a piece (or set) of stronger beliefs that conflict with this anticipation. There is something arguing a “Yes, but...” where the ‘but’ is still more convincing than the ‘yes’.
Is it that the information “didn’t cascade down” to your intuition, or is it just that your intuition doesn’t find that piece of information as convincing as you think it ought to be?
In general, when you get a “yes, but” (and *especially* when the “but” is explicitly more convincing than the “yes”), focus on the “but”. But what? Yes, you understand that you’ve seen situations where one person sure seems to be little more than a burden and is still accepted, but that part of you still isn’t convinced. Why not? What’s in the “but”?
If I had to take a guess, you probably don’t *want* to be little more than a burden on someone else, even if they still accept you (maybe they *shouldn’t*, even). I know that’s the case with other people, and if you feel the same way it would make sense that “but they’ll accept me anyway” doesn’t feel like it changes anything, no?
I’m not sure I follow you on the idea of lines of retreat. It seems like it a ‘line of retreat’ is moving around an obstacle deemed to difficult rather than through it. It would be useful to accept the obstacle as insurmountable without rigorous testing if you need to move forward before you can complete the testing. But my issue is that if this obstacle is too long, then I’m constantly skirting a more optimal path. It’s like walking around a forest instead of through it because you don’t trust yourself how to survive in the forest. What I’m after right now is how to survive in the forest because I think it will be faster and better in the long term to learn this skill than to become really good at skirting the forest.
I’m not sure I follow you either. Are you saying that you’d rather go forward with convincing yourself of something that you think is true rather than “going around” by making a line of retreat? If so, that’s not really what I’m getting at. I’m not saying “go around instead”, I’m saying “*even if* you want to go forward, the best way to do that when stuck is to open up the option of going around”.
I’ll give you an example. I recently had a client that wanted me to hypnotize him to forget something. I pointed out to him that what he wants is to *believe differently* he actually doesn’t know for sure that the thing he’s asking to forget actually happened—after all it’s possible that I hypnotized him to think it was real to prove a point. He was “yeah, but”ing me by saying stuff like “yeah, I mean, I guess that’s possible, but I don’t think it’s very likely”—and then not taking the idea seriously at all. I picked apart his reasoning and let him know that doing that kind of thing to prove a point is *exactly* the kind of thing I’d do, and that I have indeed done it in the past. Eventually it got down to “yeah, I mean, everything you’re saying makes sense, but I just don’t believe it”.
Seems irrational, no? Like, if you aren’t going to open your mind to evidence, then how do you expect to learn when you’re wrong. If I had doubled down on the wrongness of this decision, it would have pushed him to agreeing with what I’m saying, yet being unable to actually experience the uncertainty that I was pointing him towards. Instead, what I said was “while that may *seem* silly, that’s actually a really good strategy to keep yourself from being manipulated by tricky hypnotists”. I was giving him a line of retreat by saying “we don’t have to do this”, and putting to words his reluctance to let me inspire doubt on such seemingly fundamental things. I didn’t do it because I thought he should *take* it, but because I knew giving him the option would keep him from getting hung up and stuck on it *regardless* of which he felt was the better option. Reminding him that don’t *have to* keep going forward turned out to be a *really quick* way of getting him to accept his passage through the forest. It reminded him that he *wanted* to get his perspective manipulated by me, that his is why he was there, and so he admitted that it really was a serious possibility and took it appropriately seriously and we were back on track.
I hadn’t heard Confidence All The Way Up as a name but I’m familiar with the concept, in some places I have this, and more often than not other people had called it a weakness. That I would too readily dismiss other people’s ideas as “not aligned with the evidence” because I was spending more time developing my own theory than I was about thinking about the implications of the statements of others. >Part of me would think “So now I’m selfish because I don’t care about things that are easily disproven?” and part of me would think “Maybe I didn’t understand what they actually meant.” The second part recently started winning (probably due to a deterioration of a key relationship and not necessarily based on evidence in the strictest sense) and so I’ve been purposefully suppressing Confidence All The Way Up and trying to be a better listener. But I think he has a point that this is a useful way to function, and I would do well to apply it here. I don’t think I’ve sunk into hopelessness, so much as I’ve gotten stuck.
The weakness isn’t “being confident”, it’s in “dismissing the ideas of people who he wants to continue relating to before they agree that he would be right to”.
The question is “does the fact that their ideas are not aligned with the evidence as I see it mean that I should dismiss their views?”, and I think the answer is a pretty strong “no”, in general. You don’t have to object that people’s views aren’t aligned with the evidence just because (in your view) they are not. You don’t have to squash your feeling of confidence to listen once you realize that you can listen for reasons other than “I’m likely wrong”. You can still listen out of a desire to understand where they’re coming from *regardless* of whether they turn out to be righter than you had known. You can refrain from objecting simply be realizing that they don’t (yet) want to hear what you think.
Maybe you *didn’t* understand what they actually meant. Maybe you did, and they just didn’t recognize how much freaking thought you put into making sure you’re right, and taking into account what other people think. I’ve had both happen. Listen because they don’t see eye to eye with you, and you want to figure out how to get there.
So how could I possibly give someone advice on how much apologizing will hurt? If they’re the type of person who takes embarrassment super seriously it will be totally different than if it’s not big deal.
It’s not so much “how much will this hurt” as it is “how much should this hurt”. In other words, “how much does it have to hurt before I reconsider”. In the running case, for example, you can’t know before their run if they’ll experience mild muscle soreness of if they’ll step on a nail. You want them to know that if it feels like they’ve stepped on the nail, this isn’t what you’re talking about, and you shouldn’t try to run through that.
There is a distinction between “this is how intense the sensations might be” and “this is the thing they signify, and how bad it is”. A lot of the subjective experience of “pain” has to do with the meaning attached to it, and the reaction to that meaning.
In jiu jitsu for example, beginners are often not taught heel hooks in part because the sensation of a knee ligament about to rupture doesn’t always stand out as a big deal, and so people will sometimes hurt themselves because they don’t notice the warning signs. At the same time, you can get people screaming in pain once their foot is turned the wrong way because all of a sudden the meaning has changed and they no longer feel “okay”. Other people can have the same thing happen to them and just kinda look at it like “oops, I screwed that up” because they simply aren’t overwhelmed by the idea that their ligaments just tore and their limb isn’t pointing the right way anymore.
When you’re talking to someone who is in pain (or needs to do something which will be painful), there’s two things you want to communicate. One is that it’s okay, even though whatever the bad thing is that happened, and the other is what the bad thing is. When you can do those two things, their entire experience can change dramatically.
The same principles apply to emotional concerns. For example, if someone is going to feel embarrassed by something to a degree which seems appropriate and okay, then all you are going to need to communicate is “Yes, this is going to be embarrassing. It’s okay”. If they’re going to be way more embarrassed than is called for (in your opinion), then you *also* want to be communicating that the damage isn’t as severe (or call for such an extreme aversion) as it seems. It’s the “this sensation means your knee is about to explode” training in reverse. In this case, you aren’t just saying “embarrassment is okay”, you’re also saying “it’s not even that embarrassing”. Be prepared for people to not just take your word on this, of course, but that is the point of contention.
One way to deal with it is to actually paint them a picture of what it’s like from your perspective so that they can see that it’s not that big a deal (if they find your story convincing). Another is to just show awareness that it seems super horrible and worth being embarrassed over, and that you don’t expect them to be convinced, but that you actually don’t think it’s that big a deal, for what it’s worth. If your opinion means something to them, this can still have a significant effect.
As I read it, the advice Alicorn is giving here relates to the part where you don’t want to miss the fact that someone might perceive an embarrassing event as way worse than you do (accurately or not) and then tell them “you should put up with it so that you can do X” without noticing that you might be asking them to endure a much bigger perceived (and maybe real) cost than you actually think it’s worth. For example, you might want to say “I’d probably apologize to them if I were in your shoes. And yeah, it’s kinda gonna suck. I wouldn’t be smiling about it for sure, and I might have a hard time being in a good mood for the rest of the evening, but it’s not like it’s worth traumatizing yourself over. If it feels like something you can’t handle, then that’s fine too. It’s not the end of the world if this person doesn’t get their apology”.
I agree with the idea that it’s important for people to understand their pain when they aren’t going to just flinch from it.
The framing you chose seems odd to me though. Instead of saying “if you’re going to suggest people do something painful, you should present them with a model/make sure they understand” or saying “if someone is suggesting you do something painful, make sure you have a model”, you say “*they* should present *you* with a model”. Are you intending to suggest to your audience that they should feel *entitled* to having a model accompany the initial request, above and beyond the fact that it’s important to understand?