But it also has secondary effects on your model of the world. Your mind (consciously or subconsciously) now has new information that the world is slightly less safe or slightly less predictable than it thought before.
Are you saying that there’s a bias to over-update in favor of the world being bad? And that talking it out helps correct for that?
I would guess:
Sometimes people over-update, but people under-update too; not clear which direction the overall bias would be if any.
Over-updating might cause one to run to one’s allies for more support, but doesn’t usually cause one to seek reassurance of the kind that corrects for the bias; e.g. someone doing this would find reassuring words like “you’ll make it through this” reassuring, but wouldn’t be explicitly seeking them out—there’s no reason to specifically seek evidence in one direction, that doesn’t make sense
On the other hand, people might play at over-updating in order to get sympathy and reassurances. This (not-necessarily-conscious) tactic can put one in a better position in a group dynamic, as others attempt to make you feel better.
Talking about a problem to somebody you have a close relationship with addresses these second-order effects in a pretty concrete way: it reaffirms the reliability of your relationship in a way that makes the world feel more safe and predictable,
Is it reaffirming something that already should/could be known (so perhaps helping mitigate a bias)? Or is it really gathering important new information?
Gathering new information can make sense: even long-established partnerships can go sour, so it totally makes sense to gather information on how strong your partnerships are. And it also might especially make sense when you’ve discovered a new problem or updated toward the world being a bit harder to deal with in general.
And it also makes sense that this would end up being a weird indirect kind of conversation to have, since just asking “is our partnership strong?” is not a very good signalling equilibrium—too easy to just say “yes”.
(Not saying that’s the actual answer, though. I think perhaps there are yet more complexities here.)
Are you saying that there’s a bias to over-update in favor of the world being bad? And that talking it out helps correct for that?
I would guess:
Sometimes people over-update, but people under-update too; not clear which direction the overall bias would be if any.
Over-updating might cause one to run to one’s allies for more support, but doesn’t usually cause one to seek reassurance of the kind that corrects for the bias; e.g. someone doing this would find reassuring words like “you’ll make it through this” reassuring, but wouldn’t be explicitly seeking them out—there’s no reason to specifically seek evidence in one direction, that doesn’t make sense
On the other hand, people might play at over-updating in order to get sympathy and reassurances. This (not-necessarily-conscious) tactic can put one in a better position in a group dynamic, as others attempt to make you feel better.
Is it reaffirming something that already should/could be known (so perhaps helping mitigate a bias)? Or is it really gathering important new information?
Gathering new information can make sense: even long-established partnerships can go sour, so it totally makes sense to gather information on how strong your partnerships are. And it also might especially make sense when you’ve discovered a new problem or updated toward the world being a bit harder to deal with in general.
And it also makes sense that this would end up being a weird indirect kind of conversation to have, since just asking “is our partnership strong?” is not a very good signalling equilibrium—too easy to just say “yes”.
(Not saying that’s the actual answer, though. I think perhaps there are yet more complexities here.)
I’d say there’s a strong tendency to over-update just because of recency bias.
Ah, I see. But to what extent is recency bias irrational vs just a good prior for the world we live in?