“believing X” and “knowing X is not true” cannot happen in the same head
This is known as doublethink. Its connotations are mostly negative, but Scott Fitzgerald did say that “The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function”—a bon mot I find insightful.
(Basilisk Warning: may not be good information to read if you suffer depression or anxiety and do not want to separate beliefs from evidence.)
Having an internalized locus of control strongly correlates with a wide variety of psychological and physiological health benefits. There’s some evidence that this link is causative for at least some characteristics. It’s not a completely unblemished good characteristic—it correlates with lower compliance with medical orders, and probably isn’t good for some anxiety disorders in extreme cases—but it seems more helpful than not.
It’s also almost certainly a lie. Indeed, it’s obvious that such a thing can’t exist under any useful models of reality. There are mountains of evidence for either the nature or nurture side of the debate, to the point where we really hope that bad choices are caused by as external an event as possible because /that/, at least, we might be able fix.. At a more basic level, there’s a whole lot of universe that isn’t you than there is you to start with. On the upside, if your locus of control is external, at least it’s not worth worrying about. You couldn’t do much to change it, after all.
Psychology has a few other traits where this sort of thing pops up, most hilariously during placebo studies, though that’s perhaps too easy an example. It’s not the only one, though : useful lies are core to a lot of current solutions to social problems, all the way down to using normal decision theory to cooperate in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma.
It’s possible (even plausible) that this represents a valley of rationality—like the earlier example of Pascal’s Wagers that hold decent Utilitarian tradeoffs underneath -- but I’m not sure falsifiable, and it’s certainly not obvious right now.
Basilisk Warning: may not be good information to read if you suffer depression or anxiety and do not want to separate beliefs from evidence.
As an afflicted individual, I appreciate the content warning. I’m responding without having read the rest of the comment. This is a note of gratitude to you, and a data point that for yourself and others that such content warnings are appreciated.
I second Evan that the warning was a good idea, but I do wonder whether it would be better to just say “content warning”; “Basilisk” sounds culty, might point confused people towards dangerous or distressing ideas, and is a word which we should probably be not using more than necessary around here for the simple PR reason of not looking like idiots.
Yeah, other terminology is probably a better idea. I’d avoided ‘trigger’ because it isn’t likely to actually trigger anything, but there’s no reason to use new terms when perfectly good existing ones are available. Content warning isn’t quite right, but it’s close enough and enough people are unaware of the original meaning, that its probably preferable to use.
It’s possibly to use particle models or wave models to make predictions about photons, but believing a photon is both of those things is a separate matter, and is neither useful nor true—a photon is actually neither.
Truth is not beauty, so there’s no contradiction there, and even the impression of one disappears if the statements are made less poetic and oversimplified.
This is known as doublethink. Its connotations are mostly negative, but Scott Fitzgerald did say that “The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function”—a bon mot I find insightful.
Example of that being useful?
(Basilisk Warning: may not be good information to read if you suffer depression or anxiety and do not want to separate beliefs from evidence.)
Having an internalized locus of control strongly correlates with a wide variety of psychological and physiological health benefits. There’s some evidence that this link is causative for at least some characteristics. It’s not a completely unblemished good characteristic—it correlates with lower compliance with medical orders, and probably isn’t good for some anxiety disorders in extreme cases—but it seems more helpful than not.
It’s also almost certainly a lie. Indeed, it’s obvious that such a thing can’t exist under any useful models of reality. There are mountains of evidence for either the nature or nurture side of the debate, to the point where we really hope that bad choices are caused by as external an event as possible because /that/, at least, we might be able fix.. At a more basic level, there’s a whole lot of universe that isn’t you than there is you to start with. On the upside, if your locus of control is external, at least it’s not worth worrying about. You couldn’t do much to change it, after all.
Psychology has a few other traits where this sort of thing pops up, most hilariously during placebo studies, though that’s perhaps too easy an example. It’s not the only one, though : useful lies are core to a lot of current solutions to social problems, all the way down to using normal decision theory to cooperate in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma.
It’s possible (even plausible) that this represents a valley of rationality—like the earlier example of Pascal’s Wagers that hold decent Utilitarian tradeoffs underneath -- but I’m not sure falsifiable, and it’s certainly not obvious right now.
As an afflicted individual, I appreciate the content warning. I’m responding without having read the rest of the comment. This is a note of gratitude to you, and a data point that for yourself and others that such content warnings are appreciated.
I second Evan that the warning was a good idea, but I do wonder whether it would be better to just say “content warning”; “Basilisk” sounds culty, might point confused people towards dangerous or distressing ideas, and is a word which we should probably be not using more than necessary around here for the simple PR reason of not looking like idiots.
Yeah, other terminology is probably a better idea. I’d avoided ‘trigger’ because it isn’t likely to actually trigger anything, but there’s no reason to use new terms when perfectly good existing ones are available. Content warning isn’t quite right, but it’s close enough and enough people are unaware of the original meaning, that its probably preferable to use.
Mostly in the analysis of complex phenomena with multiple in(or barely)compatible frameworks of looking at them.
A photon is a wave.
A photon is a particle.
Love is temporary insanity.
Love is the most beautiful feeling you can have.
Etc., etc.
It’s possibly to use particle models or wave models to make predictions about photons, but believing a photon is both of those things is a separate matter, and is neither useful nor true—a photon is actually neither.
Truth is not beauty, so there’s no contradiction there, and even the impression of one disappears if the statements are made less poetic and oversimplified.