I feel embarrassed that I’m just now reading this. >_< ′ (Ray knows but: I’m the aforementioned “Brienne Yudkowsky”, my name’s just different now.) I enjoyed it; it’s really interesting and valuable to see my thoughts contextualized from the outside and narrativized. It’s usually hard for me to see forests when I’m surrounded by trees.
> There are very few opportunities to practice noticing confusion.
I’m really curious how you relate to this claim six years later.
it’s really interesting and valuable to see my thoughts contextualized from the outside and narrativized. It’s usually hard for me to see forests when I’m surrounded by trees.
Curious if there are more bits of which tree/forest shifts stood out, or what felt valuable. No pressure if that feels weird.
I’m really curious how you relate to this claim six years later.
Well, right before you asking this question I think I’d have said “still seems fairly true to me.” (I meant the claim to mean “in the wild, where you’re in the middle of a bunch of other stuff.” Having cultivated it a moderate amount, I think I notice it maybe a couple times a week? I think while I’m, say, doing a Thinking Physics problem, or actively trying to think through a real problem, there’s more opportunities, but it’s a different style of thing than I thought I meant at the time.)
But, now that you’ve asked the question I’m all second-guessing myself. :P
1) look around the room and attempt to produce three instances of something resembling tiny quiet confusion (or louder than that if it’s available) 2) try to precisely describe the difference between surprise and confusion 3) sketch a taxonomy of confusing experiences and then ask yourself what you might be missing
I think the difference between surprise and confusion is that surprise is when something-with-low-probability happens, and confusion is when something happens that my model can’t explain. They sometimes (often) overlap (i.e. if lightning strikes, I’m surprised because that doesn’t usually happen, but I’m not confused)
look around the room and attempt to produce three instances of something resembling tiny quiet confusion (or louder than that if it’s available)
I hadn’t done this particular exercise. I just tried it now and had some little microconfusions (why is the plant wiggling? Oh, because the fan is blowing on it. Why does the light scatter like that? Okay this one is actually somewhat interesting – my brain returned a cached answer of “because there’s a light source and an obstruction casting a shadow, with some scattering”, then I realized I didn’t actually have that good a grip on why the scattering was happening the way it was).
It does make sense that if I cultivate “notice small confusions around” I can see more confusions. Something feels unsatisfying about this, compared to what I meant in the OP. I think I meant “confusions that… matter in some way,” where the thing I’m noticing is not just “oh, a confusion”, but also “oh, the feeling of slightly sliding off a confusion, with stakes.” I feel some defensive feeling like that has a different qualia than confusions I actively go looking for.
But, I guess the “Ray you don’t actually know how light scattering really works, despite having literally gone to school to study light scattering” thing does count at least for the “sliding off” property, even if it doesn’t have the “something is actually at stake beyond studying confusion for it’s own sake” property.
I feel embarrassed that I’m just now reading this. >_< ′ (Ray knows but: I’m the aforementioned “Brienne Yudkowsky”, my name’s just different now.) I enjoyed it; it’s really interesting and valuable to see my thoughts contextualized from the outside and narrativized. It’s usually hard for me to see forests when I’m surrounded by trees.
> There are very few opportunities to practice noticing confusion.
I’m really curious how you relate to this claim six years later.
Curious if there are more bits of which tree/forest shifts stood out, or what felt valuable. No pressure if that feels weird.
Well, right before you asking this question I think I’d have said “still seems fairly true to me.” (I meant the claim to mean “in the wild, where you’re in the middle of a bunch of other stuff.” Having cultivated it a moderate amount, I think I notice it maybe a couple times a week? I think while I’m, say, doing a Thinking Physics problem, or actively trying to think through a real problem, there’s more opportunities, but it’s a different style of thing than I thought I meant at the time.)
But, now that you’ve asked the question I’m all second-guessing myself. :P
if you wanna second-guess yourself even harder,
1) look around the room and attempt to produce three instances of something resembling tiny quiet confusion (or louder than that if it’s available)
2) try to precisely describe the difference between surprise and confusion
3) sketch a taxonomy of confusing experiences and then ask yourself what you might be missing
I think the difference between surprise and confusion is that surprise is when something-with-low-probability happens, and confusion is when something happens that my model can’t explain. They sometimes (often) overlap (i.e. if lightning strikes, I’m surprised because that doesn’t usually happen, but I’m not confused)
I hadn’t done this particular exercise. I just tried it now and had some little microconfusions (why is the plant wiggling? Oh, because the fan is blowing on it. Why does the light scatter like that? Okay this one is actually somewhat interesting – my brain returned a cached answer of “because there’s a light source and an obstruction casting a shadow, with some scattering”, then I realized I didn’t actually have that good a grip on why the scattering was happening the way it was).
It does make sense that if I cultivate “notice small confusions around” I can see more confusions. Something feels unsatisfying about this, compared to what I meant in the OP. I think I meant “confusions that… matter in some way,” where the thing I’m noticing is not just “oh, a confusion”, but also “oh, the feeling of slightly sliding off a confusion, with stakes.” I feel some defensive feeling like that has a different qualia than confusions I actively go looking for.
But, I guess the “Ray you don’t actually know how light scattering really works, despite having literally gone to school to study light scattering” thing does count at least for the “sliding off” property, even if it doesn’t have the “something is actually at stake beyond studying confusion for it’s own sake” property.