Then the person asks why we think it’s bad, and our unconscious supplies whatever rationale it thinks is most plausible and feeds it to us.
Don’t blame the unconscious. It only makes up explanations when you ask for them.
My first lesson in this was when I was 17 years old, at my first programming job in the USA. I hadn’t been working there very long, maybe only a week or two, and I said something or other that I hadn’t thought through—essentially making up an explanation.
The boss reprimanded me, and told me of something he called “Counter man syndrome”, wherein a person behind a counter comes to believe that they know things they don’t know, because, after all, they’re the person behind the counter. So they can’t just answer a question with “I don’t know”… and thus they make something up, without really paying attention to the fact that they’re making it up. Pretty soon, they don’t know the difference between the facts and their own bullshit.
From then on, I never believed my own made-up explanations… at least not in the field of computers. Instead, I considered them as hypotheses.
So, it’s not only a learnable skill, it can be learned quickly, at least by 17 year-old. ;-)
When I had a job behind a counter, one of the rules was: “We don’t sell ‘I don’t know’”. We were encouraged to look things up as hard as possible, but it’s easy to see how this turns into making things up. I’m going to use the term Counter man syndrome from now on.
I think we’re talking about subtly different things here. You’re talking about explanations of external events, I’m talking about explanations for your own mind states, ie why am I sad right now.
I don’t like blaming the “unconscious” or even using the word—it sounds too Freudian—but there aren’t any other good terms that mean the same thing.
I think we’re talking about subtly different things here. You’re talking about explanations of external events, I’m talking about explanations for your own mind states, ie why am I sad right now.
I’m pointing out that there is actually no difference between the two. Your “explainer” (I call it the Speculator, myself), just makes stuff up with no concern for the truth. All it cares about are plausibility and good self-image reflection.
I don’t see the Speculator as entirely unconscious, though. In fact, most of us tend to identify with the Speculator, and view its thoughts as our own. Or I suppose, you might say that the Speculator is an tool that we can choose to think with… and we tend to reach for it by default.
I don’t like blaming the “unconscious” or even using the word—it sounds too Freudian—but there aren’t any other good terms that mean the same thing.
Sometimes I refer to the other-than-conscious, or to non-conscious processes. But finer distinctions are useful at times, so I also refer to the Savant (non-verbal, sensory-oriented, single-stepping, abstraction/negation-free) and the Speculator (verbal, projecting, abstracting, etc.)
I suppose it’s open to question whether the Speculator is really “other-than-conscious”, in that it sounds like a conscious entity, and we consciously tend to identify with it, in the absence of e.g. meditative or contemplative training.
I think we’re talking about subtly different things here. You’re talking about explanations of external events, I’m talking about explanations for your own mind states, ie why am I sad right now.
What makes you think the mental systems to construct either explanation would be different? Especially given the research showing that we have dedicated mental systems devoted to rationalizing observed events.
Don’t blame the unconscious. It only makes up explanations when you ask for them.
My first lesson in this was when I was 17 years old, at my first programming job in the USA. I hadn’t been working there very long, maybe only a week or two, and I said something or other that I hadn’t thought through—essentially making up an explanation.
The boss reprimanded me, and told me of something he called “Counter man syndrome”, wherein a person behind a counter comes to believe that they know things they don’t know, because, after all, they’re the person behind the counter. So they can’t just answer a question with “I don’t know”… and thus they make something up, without really paying attention to the fact that they’re making it up. Pretty soon, they don’t know the difference between the facts and their own bullshit.
From then on, I never believed my own made-up explanations… at least not in the field of computers. Instead, I considered them as hypotheses.
So, it’s not only a learnable skill, it can be learned quickly, at least by 17 year-old. ;-)
When I had a job behind a counter, one of the rules was: “We don’t sell ‘I don’t know’”. We were encouraged to look things up as hard as possible, but it’s easy to see how this turns into making things up. I’m going to use the term Counter man syndrome from now on.
I think we’re talking about subtly different things here. You’re talking about explanations of external events, I’m talking about explanations for your own mind states, ie why am I sad right now.
I don’t like blaming the “unconscious” or even using the word—it sounds too Freudian—but there aren’t any other good terms that mean the same thing.
I’m pointing out that there is actually no difference between the two. Your “explainer” (I call it the Speculator, myself), just makes stuff up with no concern for the truth. All it cares about are plausibility and good self-image reflection.
I don’t see the Speculator as entirely unconscious, though. In fact, most of us tend to identify with the Speculator, and view its thoughts as our own. Or I suppose, you might say that the Speculator is an tool that we can choose to think with… and we tend to reach for it by default.
Sometimes I refer to the other-than-conscious, or to non-conscious processes. But finer distinctions are useful at times, so I also refer to the Savant (non-verbal, sensory-oriented, single-stepping, abstraction/negation-free) and the Speculator (verbal, projecting, abstracting, etc.)
I suppose it’s open to question whether the Speculator is really “other-than-conscious”, in that it sounds like a conscious entity, and we consciously tend to identify with it, in the absence of e.g. meditative or contemplative training.
What makes you think the mental systems to construct either explanation would be different? Especially given the research showing that we have dedicated mental systems devoted to rationalizing observed events.