If you’ll pardon a digression, I got hung up on the first line of this post. Please note that the following has nothing to do with the rest of the content (i.e. I’m not saying whether this was or wasn’t a good post otherwise).
Had to write this down somewhere.
This reads like you’re making an excuse, or asking a pardon, for posting this, and I don’t see why you would do so. If you think it’s appropriate for LW discussion, post it with pride. If you don’t, put it elsewhere. If you’re not sure whether it’s appropriate or not, it would be clearer to ask that explicitly so you could get an explicit response.
The reason it caught me is that you’re stating one thing which is untrue (that you’re compelled to write it) and implying another (that if you’re going to write it, it must be here). These fit a mental pattern I’m very accustomed to but have mostly trained myself out of, after being quite successfully convinced that almost all language of compulsion (“should” “must” etc.) can be rephrased more precisely, and that doing so is beneficial towards staying aware of one’s own agency and thus taking responsibility for one’s decisions (e.g. “I can’t go, I need to do homework” → “I’m choosing to prioritize homework over going” or, as happens to be the case, “I should go to bed” → “I’m choosing to poke around Less Wrong before I go to bed, and I’m willing to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice”).
I hope this doesn’t come off as me jumping down your throat for something trivial. It just seemed like an opportunity to be less wrong which you might not have noticed. Plus, it’s good news. You’re not being compelled! :)
One of the most useful (but hard-to-internalize) things I’ve learned is that it’s good to think of your actions as choices. To frame things as “I’m deciding what I value most right now and I’m going to do that.” as opposed to “I ought to do this, but I’m too weak to do as I ought.” It’s a radical difference in mindset.
It was simply an explanation for a post that turned out longer than I expected. I suppose I felt I should “excuse” that, except not anything so strong. Would you like it removed? Apparently 11 people agree with you, so… poof! Gone!
My use of “had,” however, implies little to nothing about my agency if you interpret my sentences using your human sentence-interpreting abilities rather than relying on literalism. It’s like the large numbers of languages that contain double negatives for emphasis, rather than as positives. E.g. “You ain’t nothin’.”
And of course, given determinism of any sort, my statement may even have been literally accurate :D
My use of “had,” however, implies little to nothing about my agency if you interpret my sentences using your human sentence-interpreting abilities rather than relying on literalism.
Er? I disagree. I don’t actually see what else it could mean. :) And the point wasn’t to get you to remove it, just to suggest that you think about what it means. True enough re: determinism, but I don’t actually think that matters. :P
Some other things it could mean (it meant some of these, but not all): I really wanted to; I knew that if I didn’t write it I would likely regret it; I did it in order to maintain consistency with my previous actions and declarations; I felt the duty to do it in order to share my thoughts. And so on and so forth.
I agree insofar as it’s good to examine thoughts, but examining habits of language quickly becomes silly, as illustrated by the double negative example. Do people who use double negatives for emphasis really think that −1*-1 = −2? Better to evaluate language as communication rather than “thought-stuff.”
I don’t find that assuming predestiny has any effect on my actions.
Do people who use double negatives for emphasis really think that −1*-1 = −2?
No, because in their language, the double negative doesn’t imply that. In colloquial English, “I had to do x” does imply “I feel compelled to do x.” It doesn’t imply that some irresistable outside force really was pushing on you, just that you felt some sort of compulsion. And indeed, two of your examples suggest that you feel pressure to behave consistently and to share your thoughts.
Better to evaluate language as communication rather than “thought-stuff.”
What an odd distinction. What is language for, if not communicating thoughts? I wasn’t claiming that the words you chose said something other than what you clearly meant—but if I had been, wouldn’t that be important? Language is the most precise tool you’ve got for getting thoughts outside your own head. Seems to me that it’s worth ensuring that you use it as accurately as you can.
What I was actually claiming is that you were using a language pattern which I’ve found it beneficial to stop using. Using it doesn’t mean that you really believe you don’t have agency, but not using it might help you internalize that you do. The original comment wasn’t a complaint that you were doing something wrong, just a suggestion that you might benefit from doing something differently.
I don’t find that assuming predestiny has any effect on my actions.
“Assuming predestiny” is itself an action, for one thing. It totally messes up the moral weights we assign to actions, for another.
In colloquial English, “I had to do x” does imply “I feel compelled to do x.”[...] And indeed, two of your examples suggest that you feel pressure to behave consistently and to share your thoughts.
Hm, perhaps I am drawing lines differently than you. You said in your first post that my use of “had” was specifically untrue. And yet it’s fine to say that it’s true if I felt even “some pressure” to do it. You probably noticed this oddness too, since you reiterate:
What I was actually claiming is that you were using a language pattern which I’ve found it beneficial to stop using.
Oh, okay. Well, to be frank: tough. I take perhaps a little too much responsibility already :D
Better to evaluate language as communication rather than “thought-stuff.”
What an odd distinction. What is language for, if not communicating thoughts?
You just made the distinction too :) For example, some people claim that double negatives (including “ain’t no”) are “wrong.” As if they were a false theorem, or a wrong thought. But when they are seen as a mode of communicating thoughts, it’s clear that the only requirement is that it works.
A closely related argument is over whether or not using language truly changes the way you think. There are some subtle and interesting ways that it does, but in general, Orwell was wrong. (Here, have a link.)
Now, if you were claiming that using “had” was bad communication, I’d be more inclined to listen. In fact I already have implicitly listened, since I removed that sentence.
In general I’ve found that making your preferences more explicit leads to a more satisfactory outcome on reflection. But I’m not sure how I should structure my time so as to balance the benefits of preference clarification with the costs of not acting towards my current approximation of my preference. Right now I’m using the heuristic of periodically doing preference clarification, with the periods being longer between higher-order preference clarification.
This issue also seems related to the question of when to go meta. I tried to get a discussion about that going here.
I didn’t follow this entirely, and I’d like to. Can you elaborate on why you need to balance the clarification with acting on the preference? I don’t see why they’re opposed.
Can you elaborate on why you need to balance the clarification with acting on the preference? I don’t see why they’re opposed.
I guess I was thinking they’re opposed in the way that any two possible actions are opposed; at any given time one could be higher value than the other. But perhaps you’re thinking that one can do them at the same time? In fact we might want to think of acting on preference as clarifying preference, in which case I don’t really know what to do. I’m not sure if we should do that yet, since I’m unclear as to whether we’re trying to discover preference or determine it.
Well, they’re opposed in that each of them takes some of your finite time and they can’t generally be combined, yes. But this is also true of sleeping and eating, and I don’t have trouble finding time for both. My remarks about taking responsibility for preferences weren’t really about when to choose to say them, but about phrasing them explicitly when I was going to say them anyway. I suppose you could call that discovering the preference, but I think of it more as observing—or, closer, as not letting myself get away with denying them.
If you’ll pardon a digression, I got hung up on the first line of this post. Please note that the following has nothing to do with the rest of the content (i.e. I’m not saying whether this was or wasn’t a good post otherwise).
This reads like you’re making an excuse, or asking a pardon, for posting this, and I don’t see why you would do so. If you think it’s appropriate for LW discussion, post it with pride. If you don’t, put it elsewhere. If you’re not sure whether it’s appropriate or not, it would be clearer to ask that explicitly so you could get an explicit response.
The reason it caught me is that you’re stating one thing which is untrue (that you’re compelled to write it) and implying another (that if you’re going to write it, it must be here). These fit a mental pattern I’m very accustomed to but have mostly trained myself out of, after being quite successfully convinced that almost all language of compulsion (“should” “must” etc.) can be rephrased more precisely, and that doing so is beneficial towards staying aware of one’s own agency and thus taking responsibility for one’s decisions (e.g. “I can’t go, I need to do homework” → “I’m choosing to prioritize homework over going” or, as happens to be the case, “I should go to bed” → “I’m choosing to poke around Less Wrong before I go to bed, and I’m willing to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice”).
I hope this doesn’t come off as me jumping down your throat for something trivial. It just seemed like an opportunity to be less wrong which you might not have noticed. Plus, it’s good news. You’re not being compelled! :)
One of the most useful (but hard-to-internalize) things I’ve learned is that it’s good to think of your actions as choices. To frame things as “I’m deciding what I value most right now and I’m going to do that.” as opposed to “I ought to do this, but I’m too weak to do as I ought.” It’s a radical difference in mindset.
Indeed. It makes me feel much more in control and much more capable.
It was simply an explanation for a post that turned out longer than I expected. I suppose I felt I should “excuse” that, except not anything so strong. Would you like it removed? Apparently 11 people agree with you, so… poof! Gone!
My use of “had,” however, implies little to nothing about my agency if you interpret my sentences using your human sentence-interpreting abilities rather than relying on literalism. It’s like the large numbers of languages that contain double negatives for emphasis, rather than as positives. E.g. “You ain’t nothin’.”
And of course, given determinism of any sort, my statement may even have been literally accurate :D
Er? I disagree. I don’t actually see what else it could mean. :) And the point wasn’t to get you to remove it, just to suggest that you think about what it means. True enough re: determinism, but I don’t actually think that matters. :P
How could it not matter? :)
Some other things it could mean (it meant some of these, but not all): I really wanted to; I knew that if I didn’t write it I would likely regret it; I did it in order to maintain consistency with my previous actions and declarations; I felt the duty to do it in order to share my thoughts. And so on and so forth.
I agree insofar as it’s good to examine thoughts, but examining habits of language quickly becomes silly, as illustrated by the double negative example. Do people who use double negatives for emphasis really think that −1*-1 = −2? Better to evaluate language as communication rather than “thought-stuff.”
I don’t find that assuming predestiny has any effect on my actions.
No, because in their language, the double negative doesn’t imply that. In colloquial English, “I had to do x” does imply “I feel compelled to do x.” It doesn’t imply that some irresistable outside force really was pushing on you, just that you felt some sort of compulsion. And indeed, two of your examples suggest that you feel pressure to behave consistently and to share your thoughts.
What an odd distinction. What is language for, if not communicating thoughts? I wasn’t claiming that the words you chose said something other than what you clearly meant—but if I had been, wouldn’t that be important? Language is the most precise tool you’ve got for getting thoughts outside your own head. Seems to me that it’s worth ensuring that you use it as accurately as you can.
What I was actually claiming is that you were using a language pattern which I’ve found it beneficial to stop using. Using it doesn’t mean that you really believe you don’t have agency, but not using it might help you internalize that you do. The original comment wasn’t a complaint that you were doing something wrong, just a suggestion that you might benefit from doing something differently.
“Assuming predestiny” is itself an action, for one thing. It totally messes up the moral weights we assign to actions, for another.
Hm, perhaps I am drawing lines differently than you. You said in your first post that my use of “had” was specifically untrue. And yet it’s fine to say that it’s true if I felt even “some pressure” to do it. You probably noticed this oddness too, since you reiterate:
Oh, okay. Well, to be frank: tough. I take perhaps a little too much responsibility already :D
You just made the distinction too :) For example, some people claim that double negatives (including “ain’t no”) are “wrong.” As if they were a false theorem, or a wrong thought. But when they are seen as a mode of communicating thoughts, it’s clear that the only requirement is that it works.
A closely related argument is over whether or not using language truly changes the way you think. There are some subtle and interesting ways that it does, but in general, Orwell was wrong. (Here, have a link.)
Now, if you were claiming that using “had” was bad communication, I’d be more inclined to listen. In fact I already have implicitly listened, since I removed that sentence.
Speaking of communication, we seem to be interested in having different conversations from each other in this thread; let’s not.
In general I’ve found that making your preferences more explicit leads to a more satisfactory outcome on reflection. But I’m not sure how I should structure my time so as to balance the benefits of preference clarification with the costs of not acting towards my current approximation of my preference. Right now I’m using the heuristic of periodically doing preference clarification, with the periods being longer between higher-order preference clarification.
This issue also seems related to the question of when to go meta. I tried to get a discussion about that going here.
I didn’t follow this entirely, and I’d like to. Can you elaborate on why you need to balance the clarification with acting on the preference? I don’t see why they’re opposed.
I guess I was thinking they’re opposed in the way that any two possible actions are opposed; at any given time one could be higher value than the other. But perhaps you’re thinking that one can do them at the same time? In fact we might want to think of acting on preference as clarifying preference, in which case I don’t really know what to do. I’m not sure if we should do that yet, since I’m unclear as to whether we’re trying to discover preference or determine it.
Well, they’re opposed in that each of them takes some of your finite time and they can’t generally be combined, yes. But this is also true of sleeping and eating, and I don’t have trouble finding time for both. My remarks about taking responsibility for preferences weren’t really about when to choose to say them, but about phrasing them explicitly when I was going to say them anyway. I suppose you could call that discovering the preference, but I think of it more as observing—or, closer, as not letting myself get away with denying them.