Another learning which cost me much to recognize, can be stated in four words. The facts are friendly.
It has interested me a great deal that most psychotherapists, especially the psychoanalysts, have steadily refused to make any scientific investigation of their therapy, or to permit others to do this. I can understand this reaction because I have felt it. Especially in our early investigations I can well remember the anxiety of waiting to see how the findings came out. Suppose our hypotheses were disproved! Suppose we were mistaken in our views! Suppose our opinions were not justified! At such times, as I look back, it seems to me that I regarded the facts as potential enemies, as possible bearers of disaster. I have perhaps been slow in coming to realize that the facts are always friendly. Every bit of evidence one can acquire, in any area, leads one that much closer to what is true. And being closer to the truth can never be a harmful or dangerous or unsatisfying thing. So while I still hate to readjust my thinking, still hate to give up old ways of perceiving and conceptualizing, yet at some deeper level I have, to a considerable degree, come to realize that these painful reorganizations are what is known as learning, and that though painful they always lead to a more satisfying because somewhat more accurate way of seeing life. Thus at the present time one of the most enticing areas for thought and speculation is an area where several of my pet ideas have not been upheld by the evidence, I feel if I can only puzzle my way through this problem that I will find a much more satisfying approximation to the truth. I feel sure the facts will be my friends.
-Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy (1961)
Another learning which cost me much to recognize, can be stated in four words. The facts are friendly.
A while ago I saw a good post or quote on LW on the problem of confusing a phrase one uses to encapsulate an insight with the insight itself. Unfortunately I don’t remember where.
And being closer to the truth can never be a harmful or dangerous or unsatisfying thing.
Knowing about evolution is pretty cool, but I’d be a lot more satisfied if I could believe that we were created as the pinnacle of design by a super-awesome Thing that had a specific plan in mind (and that my nation—and, come to that, tribe -was even more pinnacle than everyone else).
Okay, hypothetical: Dying human. They believed in God their entire life and have lived as basically decent according to their own ethics, and therefore think they’re going to be blissing out for the rest of infinity. They will believe this for the next couple of minutes, and then stop existing.
Would you, given the opportunity, dispel their illusion?
Depends on what I expected the result of doing so to be.
If I expected the result to be that they are more unhappy than they otherwise would be for the rest of their lives with no other compensating benefit (which is certainly the conclusion your hypothetical encourages), then no I wouldn’t.
If I expected the result to be either that they are happier than they otherwise would be for the rest of their lives, or that there is some other compensating benefit to them knowing what will actually happen, then yes I would.
Because this is (to my mind) an example of a situation where the facts aren’t friendly and the truth is harmful—thus (hopefully) justifying my objection to the original quote.
Dispel all their illusions, including the one that assigned negative utility to unavoidable dying. There are better things to do with 2 minutes than expecting fun you won’t receive.
If you know of any illusions that give inevitably ceasing to exist negative utility to someone leading a positive-utility life, I would love to have them dispelled for me.
Hmm. I may be a bit biased because I don’t really have a high valuation on being alive as such (which is to say utility[X] is nearly the same as utility[X and Julian is alive] for me, all other things being equal—it’s why I am not signed up for cryonics).
However I think that any utility calculus that negatively values the fun you’re not going to have when inevitably dead is as silly as negatively valuing the fun you didn’t get to have because said events preceded your birth, and you inevitably can’t extend your life into the past. You get more chance to fulfil your values in the real world by making use of your 2 minutes than by anticipating values that are not going to happen. And I do very much place utility on my values being fulfilled in a real, rather than self deceptive way.
I wasn’t clear. Believing that would make me happy even if it wasn’t true. There’s no reason to assume reality would be nice enough to only hand us facts that we find satisfying.
If you happen to have a brain that finds the process of learning more satisfying than any possible falsehood, then that’s great… But I don’t think many people have that advantage.
There’s a substantial minority in the community that dislikes the Litany of Gendlin, so you have plenty of company here.
But even granting the premise that believing true things conflicts with being happy, believing true things has been useful for achieving every other type of goal. So it seems like you are endorsing trading off achievement of other goals in order to maximize happiness. Without challenging your decision to adopt particular terminal values, I am unsure if your chosen tradeoff is sustainable.
I’m not endorsing that, for exactly the reason you said: knowing stuff, on average, will let you achieve your goals. The original quote, though, stated that the truth is “never unsatisfying”, which seemed to me to be a false statement.
You sound pretty confident that, if you believed that we were created as the pinnacle of design by a super-awesome Thing that had a specific plan in mind, and that your nation/tribe was even more pinnacle than everyone else, you would be happier than you are now.
Can you clarify your reasons for believing that? I mean, I grew up with a lot of people who believe that, and as a class they didn’t seem noticeably happier than the people who didn’t, so I’m inclined to doubt it. But I’m convinceable.
You got me, since during the time I did believe that I was a lot less happy than I am now, because that falsehood was part of a whole set of falsehoods which led to annoying obligations. But I do distinctly remember being satisfied with knowing the ultimate goal of the universe and my place in it, and how realising the truth made me feel unsatisfied.
The statement “the truth is never an unsatisfying thing” seems to be affect-heuristic reasoning: going from “truth is useful” to “truth is good” to “truth always feels good to know”.
Sure. To the extent that you’re simply arguing that the initial quote overreaches, I’m not disagreeing with you. But you seemed to be making more positive claims about the value of ignorance.
-Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy (1961)
Facts are friendly on average, that is. Individual pieces of evidence might lead you to update towards a wrong conclusion. /nitpick
Even then we could potentially nitpick even further, depending on what is meant by ‘average’.
Excellent point.
A while ago I saw a good post or quote on LW on the problem of confusing a phrase one uses to encapsulate an insight with the insight itself. Unfortunately I don’t remember where.
Knowing about evolution is pretty cool, but I’d be a lot more satisfied if I could believe that we were created as the pinnacle of design by a super-awesome Thing that had a specific plan in mind (and that my nation—and, come to that, tribe -was even more pinnacle than everyone else).
...and if it turned out that believing that particular falsehood didn’t have consequences that left you less satisfied.
Okay, hypothetical: Dying human. They believed in God their entire life and have lived as basically decent according to their own ethics, and therefore think they’re going to be blissing out for the rest of infinity. They will believe this for the next couple of minutes, and then stop existing.
Would you, given the opportunity, dispel their illusion?
Depends on what I expected the result of doing so to be.
If I expected the result to be that they are more unhappy than they otherwise would be for the rest of their lives with no other compensating benefit (which is certainly the conclusion your hypothetical encourages), then no I wouldn’t.
If I expected the result to be either that they are happier than they otherwise would be for the rest of their lives, or that there is some other compensating benefit to them knowing what will actually happen, then yes I would.
Why do you ask?
Because this is (to my mind) an example of a situation where the facts aren’t friendly and the truth is harmful—thus (hopefully) justifying my objection to the original quote.
OK. Thanks for clarifying.
Dispel all their illusions, including the one that assigned negative utility to unavoidable dying. There are better things to do with 2 minutes than expecting fun you won’t receive.
If you know of any illusions that give inevitably ceasing to exist negative utility to someone leading a positive-utility life, I would love to have them dispelled for me.
Sorry for the slow reply.
Hmm. I may be a bit biased because I don’t really have a high valuation on being alive as such (which is to say utility[X] is nearly the same as utility[X and Julian is alive] for me, all other things being equal—it’s why I am not signed up for cryonics).
However I think that any utility calculus that negatively values the fun you’re not going to have when inevitably dead is as silly as negatively valuing the fun you didn’t get to have because said events preceded your birth, and you inevitably can’t extend your life into the past. You get more chance to fulfil your values in the real world by making use of your 2 minutes than by anticipating values that are not going to happen. And I do very much place utility on my values being fulfilled in a real, rather than self deceptive way.
Yes, the whole statement has an implicit “In the real world” premise.
I’d be happy if I had a magic wand that could violate the second law of thermodynamics, but in the real world . . .
I wasn’t clear. Believing that would make me happy even if it wasn’t true. There’s no reason to assume reality would be nice enough to only hand us facts that we find satisfying.
If you happen to have a brain that finds the process of learning more satisfying than any possible falsehood, then that’s great… But I don’t think many people have that advantage.
There’s a substantial minority in the community that dislikes the Litany of Gendlin, so you have plenty of company here.
But even granting the premise that believing true things conflicts with being happy, believing true things has been useful for achieving every other type of goal. So it seems like you are endorsing trading off achievement of other goals in order to maximize happiness. Without challenging your decision to adopt particular terminal values, I am unsure if your chosen tradeoff is sustainable.
I’m not endorsing that, for exactly the reason you said: knowing stuff, on average, will let you achieve your goals. The original quote, though, stated that the truth is “never unsatisfying”, which seemed to me to be a false statement.
You sound pretty confident that, if you believed that we were created as the pinnacle of design by a super-awesome Thing that had a specific plan in mind, and that your nation/tribe was even more pinnacle than everyone else, you would be happier than you are now.
Can you clarify your reasons for believing that? I mean, I grew up with a lot of people who believe that, and as a class they didn’t seem noticeably happier than the people who didn’t, so I’m inclined to doubt it. But I’m convinceable.
You got me, since during the time I did believe that I was a lot less happy than I am now, because that falsehood was part of a whole set of falsehoods which led to annoying obligations. But I do distinctly remember being satisfied with knowing the ultimate goal of the universe and my place in it, and how realising the truth made me feel unsatisfied.
The statement “the truth is never an unsatisfying thing” seems to be affect-heuristic reasoning: going from “truth is useful” to “truth is good” to “truth always feels good to know”.
Sure. To the extent that you’re simply arguing that the initial quote overreaches, I’m not disagreeing with you. But you seemed to be making more positive claims about the value of ignorance.