You teach classes like Goal Factoring, Internal Double Crux, and TAPs (Trigger Actions Plans), which are all about breaking parts of your mind down into smaller parts.
I expect you to endorse the statement “Breaking things down into smaller parts is good!” but I’m curious if you have any more detailed opinions about that. Can you share your sense of when it’s the right next thing to do versus not the right next thing to do, when solving problems and understanding your own mind? I’d also be interested in stories of when you’ve seen people do it especially well or badly.
which are all about breaking parts of your mind down into smaller parts
Na, my mind’s a bunch of super tiny stuff to begin with. When I do IDC, I just stop in my unified-person-fabrication a little earlier than the point at which I’ve erased all ability to perceive internal distinctions.
(Sorry, I know that’s not an answer to your question. Maybe somebody, perhaps even a future me, will come by and give you a real answer.)
Hah, I did not expect that reply. Do you think this is a pretty Brienne-specific way of working internally, or d’you think if I practised IDC with you a couple of times I’d start to realise this was how I worked too?
I suppose I’m not sure why I think I’m a coherent agent generally.
I guess I have to talk as though I’m one a lot, using words like “I think” and “My perspective on this is” and “You’re disregarding my preferences here”.
I’ve found the CFAR classes called ‘IDC’ helpful when I myself am confused about what I want or what I think, especially when it’s a social situation, where I’m e.g. feeling bad but not sure why, and I split the conflicting feelings into subagents that have beliefs and goals. If I’m able to actually name supposed subagents that would give rise to the current conflict I’m feeling (and I find this be 90% of the battle), then I find that the confusion is quickly dissolved, and I am able to more clearly integrate them into a whole.
To give a real example (or something pretty close to a real time I used it), it sounds internally something like:
Ah, this part of me is worried about me losing an alliance in my tribe. This part thinks that because the person I just talked to seems sad about the things I said, that I hurt my alliances in the tribe. But another subagent, who advocates a lot for saying true things to friends even if when it’s uncomfortable, believes that moves like this where you say true things that don’t make the other person happy, will pay off in the long-run in terms of more trusted alliances. Risk and reward often go hand-in-hand, and if I’m able to weather shorter periods of the friendship having some negative interactions where the friendship has the potential to breakdown, then I’ll get stronger alliances I want in the long-term.
At which point I no longer felt conflicted, and I was able to just think about “What will I do next?” without having to go a level lower into why two parts of me were pulling in different directions.
You teach classes like Goal Factoring, Internal Double Crux, and TAPs (Trigger Actions Plans), which are all about breaking parts of your mind down into smaller parts.
I expect you to endorse the statement “Breaking things down into smaller parts is good!” but I’m curious if you have any more detailed opinions about that. Can you share your sense of when it’s the right next thing to do versus not the right next thing to do, when solving problems and understanding your own mind? I’d also be interested in stories of when you’ve seen people do it especially well or badly.
Na, my mind’s a bunch of super tiny stuff to begin with. When I do IDC, I just stop in my unified-person-fabrication a little earlier than the point at which I’ve erased all ability to perceive internal distinctions.
(Sorry, I know that’s not an answer to your question. Maybe somebody, perhaps even a future me, will come by and give you a real answer.)
Hah, I did not expect that reply. Do you think this is a pretty Brienne-specific way of working internally, or d’you think if I practised IDC with you a couple of times I’d start to realise this was how I worked too?
I suppose I’m not sure why I think I’m a coherent agent generally.
I guess I have to talk as though I’m one a lot, using words like “I think” and “My perspective on this is” and “You’re disregarding my preferences here”.
I’ve found the CFAR classes called ‘IDC’ helpful when I myself am confused about what I want or what I think, especially when it’s a social situation, where I’m e.g. feeling bad but not sure why, and I split the conflicting feelings into subagents that have beliefs and goals. If I’m able to actually name supposed subagents that would give rise to the current conflict I’m feeling (and I find this be 90% of the battle), then I find that the confusion is quickly dissolved, and I am able to more clearly integrate them into a whole.
To give a real example (or something pretty close to a real time I used it), it sounds internally something like:
At which point I no longer felt conflicted, and I was able to just think about “What will I do next?” without having to go a level lower into why two parts of me were pulling in different directions.