You might look to structured social interactions to help fit your emotional reactions to your intellectual beliefs about social interactions. For example, board games have relatively limited variation in social interaction between people who rate you a 6 and those that rate you a 4 on a 10-point likeability scale. It’s a chance to gain additional data at low risk. Look to places like Meetup.com (I’m not sure that’s international). Boardgamegeek.com is a chance to see what you might like.
Regarding therapy, keep in mind that good fit between therapist and patient is very important. If you haven’t gotten good value from therapy but are still willing to try it, finding a new therapist might yield benefit.
You might look to structured social interactions to help fit your emotional reactions to your intellectual beliefs about social interactions. For example, board games have relatively limited variation in social interaction between people who rate you a 6 and those that rate you a 4 on a 10-point likeability scale. It’s a chance to gain additional data at low risk.
Well, board games (and card games, and the like) run into a problem where I’m perceived as focused, smart, and competent, so everyone tends to team up to eliminate me quickly—so I tend to get a lot of people actually reinforcing the idea that groups conspire against me.
Regarding therapy, keep in mind that good fit between therapist and patient is very important. If you haven’t gotten good value from therapy but are still willing to try it, finding a new therapist might yield benefit.
Yeah, back when I had money for therapy, I shopped around a lot. Anymore, well… you get what you pay for.
I’d recommend finding a game where the players are working together against an automated hostile environment, such as Zombicide. If it seems like you have a workable plan, the other players will go along with it out of self-interest if nothing else. (D&D /can/ work like that, but there are a lot of other tricky factors when it’s a GM rather than a program)
As for emotional intensity… try to find some little ritual that relaxes you, like sitting still with your eyes closed and breathing slowly in and out ten times, and start doing it at semi-random times during the day. Once that becomes habitual, focus on remembering to go through the ritual whenever you start to get excited or upset. There is no plausible mechanism by which following these instructions as intended could cause kidney failure.
If self-improvement fails, what sorts of things do motivate you to act?
Absurdity is a tricky thing. Have you ever tried constructing an explicit formulation of your inferred emotional beliefs and (temporarily) acting as if it was an accepted part of your intellectual beliefs, with the goal of seeing it torn down?
I’d recommend finding a game where the players are working together against an automated hostile environment, such as Zombicide. If it seems like you have a workable plan, the other players will go along with it out of self-interest if nothing else. (D&D /can/ work like that, but there are a lot of other tricky factors when it’s a GM rather than a program)
I’ve done stuff like this; in some situations, that works reasonably well, but in others I wind up send out flags that I’m too low-status to “deserve” being listened to, no matter how reasonable or workable my plans are.
If self-improvement fails, what sorts of things do motivate you to act?
For a very long time, fear motivated me to act, but that wore out. After that, shame motivated me to act, but that’s almost fully eroded. I don’t know what I’ll have once shame runs out.
Have you ever tried constructing an explicit formulation of your inferred emotional beliefs and (temporarily) acting as if it was an accepted part of your intellectual beliefs, with the goal of seeing it torn down?
I have done exactly and explicitly this—I got the idea, weirdly enough, from Aleister Crowley via Robert A Wilson. Unfortunately, I’m VERY good at crafting mindsets / “reality tunnels” and following them—consciously embracing my inferred emotional beliefs tends to reinforce them, not tear them down. I can enter a sort of “1984″ mode where holding onto my beliefs is explicitly more important than my own survival, and relish in the self-destructivity that the absurdity of my beliefs is inflicting upon me.
Aha! In that case, possibly what you need is a code of honor. Lay down some rules of constructive behavior (I’d recommend studying a variety of historical precedents first, particularly the ways in which they can go wrong… Bushido, Ms. Manners, etc.) and pretend to be the sort of person who thinks that following those rules is the Most Important Thing.
Done correctly, you can stop worrying about the uncertainty of whether some other choice would have had a better outcome, since in any given situation there is only one honorable course of action. Simply calculate what the correct action is, and follow by rote. Under some circumstances honor may compel you to trust someone who most people would not, pass up opportunities for personal gain, dive into a frozen lake to rescue a complete stranger, openly defy the law, or otherwise engage in heroically self-destructive behavior, but it is entirely possible for the gains (from following a calculated strategy, and from other people learning to trust and rely on your consistent behavior) to predominate.
This may be controversial, but I would recommend against keeping an explicit, external record of how honorable or dishonorable your behavior has been. A journal or blog can be useful in other ways, but the plan here is eternal striving toward an ideal, not 3% improvement over last month.
I actually have a code of honor, and operate explicitly as if those rules are the Most Important Thing.
Rule 0 is “Should does not imply can; should only implies must.”—or, put another way, “Just because you cannot do something does not excuse you for not having done it.”
Rule 1 is “Always fulfill other peoples’ needs. If two people have mutually exclusive needs, failing to perfectly fulfill both is abject failure.”
Rule 2 is “All successes are private, all failures are public.”
Rule 3 is “Behave as if all negative criticisms of you were true; behave as if all compliments were empty flattery. Your worth is directly the lower of your adherence to these rules and your public image.”
Past 3 the rule-sorting gets fuzzier, but somewhere around rule 5 or 6 is “always think the best of people”, around rule 7 is “It’s wrong to win a challenge”, somewhere around rule 10 is “losers suck”.
Every rule I see there seems to be you shooting yourself in the foot. I was thinking of something which would produce exactly one correct course of action under most reasonable circumstances, whereas you seem to have quite rigorously worked out a system with fewer correct courses of action than that.
How comfortable are you with arbitrarily redefining your code, voluntarily but with external prompting? I mean, given the ambient levels of doom already involved.
Rule 0 is this one, and Rule 1 is a subcase of it, but rules 2 and (especially) 3 wouldn’t work for me—I seem to function better when my status and (especially) my self-esteem are high than when they’re low. And I don’t understand Rule 7.
The thing is, my rules have evolved to deal with the fact that I’ve ALWAYS been low-status. Most of my rules have evolved to ensure that my self-esteem stays low, because as a child and young adult, I was repeatedly punished whenever my self-esteem exceeded that of my high-status superiors. So, for me, destroying my own self-esteem and status are defensive mechanisms, designed to prevent the pack from tearing me apart (sometimes literally and physically).
Also, rule 0 (“Do the impossible”) is great if you’re some kind of high-status wunderkind like Eliezer, but when you’re some scrawny little know-it-all that no one WANTS to succeed, it’s just an invitation to get lynched, or sprayed in the face with battery acid, or beaten with a lead pipe, or sodomized with a baseball bat.
And once you’re in the domain of the “impossible”, you lose access to even those systems that have been put in place explicitly to protect people from being sodomized with a baseball bat or sprayed in the face with battery acid, because the bad people want it to happen, and the good people are incapable of acknowledging that “modern society” is still that capable of savagery.
I’ve misspoke in some of my other threads—I’m not stupid, compared to most of the people here. I’m just optimized for things like “talk my way out of a police officer putting a gun in my face and joking that no one would care enough to look for the body”, rather than things like “give a rousing TED talk”. I’m more optimized for “figure out which pack of young college-age males is more likely to attempt to dislocate my shoulders as a game” than “figure out which group of venture capitalists is more likely to fund my start-up”.
And frankly, looking at the world that way, I think I’d rather be dead than continue to perform in this environment. So all my attempts at “motivation” and “effort” get tainted by that evaluation.
That makes your situation make more sense. You might find Scott Sonnon’s work useful—he started out from a situation roughly as bad as yours (possibly less death threats, but with relentless bullying, learning disabilities, and a connective tissue disorder) and was able to put a good life together, including high achievement He works specifically with lowering one’s panic level.
The resources on this site seem to be mostly oriented toward raising somewhat above-average nerds up to truly exceptional levels. Sounds like you need a different set of resources, for a different sort of step up, possibly something like ‘feral/marginal’ up to ‘serving and being protected by a worthy master.’
Sure, but the problem is that I still have all the status-seeking instincts of an above-average nerd. I’m no good serving a master, worthy or otherwise. When I was younger, my problem was that every master I served was demonstrably less intelligent than I was, so I spent a lot of time trying to grant the wishes they would have made if they were smart enough to wish right, rather than granting the wishes they did make.
In status-oriented situations, this is a HUGE FUCKING MISTAKE, and taught me to understand that I am a bad samurai.
In the past few years, I’ve been ronin for so long that my bushido has gone rusty—and anyways, in this corporate market, no one wants a ronin in the first place.
There are non-corporate jobs. Personally, I sort scrap metal.
Perhaps we could come up with a pitch for an autobiography disguised as an anti-self-help book, “How to completely cripple yourself in just six years, with no drugs, exercise, or gimmicks!” put it on Kickstarter and see how much money people throw at you?
I must disagree, based on the technicality that there was actually some strenuous physical exercise involved with the volunteer firefighting thing.
On a more serious note, would you actually like to try doing this? Whatever else is wrong, you’re self-evidently capable of expressing yourself coherently and concisely in text. Most of the other prerequisites of being an author can (at least in principle) be handled as arm’s-length transactions, which minimize the need for any sort of personal trust.
I’m willing to entertain any idea; can you describe further? (note: private messages on this site have not been appearing reliably for me. Is there an easier process for identity exchange?)
How silly are you willing to be about the identity-exchange thing? I could, for example, give you my username on Nightstar’s forums, compromise of which would cost me nothing. You create an account there, send me a PM through that forum, I reply with some piece of information which you then repeat in reply to this comment, and (a secure channel having been established) I could then send you my e-mail address through Nightstar’s private messages.
And frankly, looking at the world that way, I think I’d rather be dead than continue to perform in this environment. So all my attempts at “motivation” and “effort” get tainted by that evaluation.
A certain kind of personal trap has been laid out and described, quite well. There is a set of ideas or “takes” on reality that have been accepted as real, but ideas and takes are never real. The error is widespread and normal, even encouraged, but when the content goes awry, the results can be devastating.
The key in the above statement is “this environment.” There is no “this environment.” As Buckaroo Banzai said, “Wherever you go, there you are.” Any environment contains ample evidence to support almost any interpretation, and our ability as human beings to invent interpretations is vast, so everywhere we look, we can find what we have believed.
We may imagine that the goal is to invent interpretations that are “true.” But interpretations are neither true nor false. The problem with the value-laden interpretations being invented here is the effects they cause. There are useful interpretations, that empower us, and ones that don’t.
There are two kinds of interpretations. The first, and fundamental kind, is predictive, it takes raw sensory data and predicts what is coming next. That’s not the problematic kind, though if we get stuck in an inefficient predictive mode, believing our predictions are “true,” confirmation bias can still strike. Still, this kind of interpretation can be readily tested.
The problem is in the second kind of interpretation, the division into good and bad, sane and insane, and hosts of these higher-level interpretations. They are much further from reality than the first kind of interpretation, and it is far more difficult to test them. How do we test if the world (“this environment”) is actually good or evil, friendly or hostile?
We are continually creating our world, but we imagine that we are only discovering it. So we are easily victims of “how it is.” Yet we make up “how it is”! That’s a judgment, it is actually a choice.
We imagine that we are constrained in our choices by our identity, but the identity does not exist. That’s ancient rationality. the self is an illusion. Let’s put it this way: if it comes from causation from the past, that’s not a choice, it’s just a machine.
Is there anything other than the machine? You have a choice in how to answer this question! One of the choices is “No.” That, then, will create you—and continue to create you—as a victim of the past, while at the same time, if you are normal, you still think that you are “real.” That’s actually inconsistent.
Far be it from me to confine anyone to only two choices, but there is at least another choice. “Yes,” there is something else, which can be experienced. But it is not a “thing” other than the machine. We are machines, but what we don’t know is the capacity of the machine. It may be that the machine can do things we never dreamed of.
Including, by the way, connecting with other people so that we are no longer limited by individual identity. Doing this may take training, it is not necessarily automatic for all of us, and especially not for those of us who were asocially intelligent. (Like me, for example.)
It’s highly likely that our friend here has experienced situations like what he describes, and being caught in a belief that this defines his future is obviously painful. But what do those situations have to do with today and tomorrow, unless he keeps recreating them?
ialdabaoth, I hope you won’t give up. I don’t think you need to learn something new, exactly, you need to unlearn stuff that you have accepted routinely, and for a long time. Rather than MoreRight, you need to be LessWrong. See what remains when you start dropping stuff that maintains the trap, that doesn’t help you.
You will continue to think the thoughts that you thought, but you don’t have to believe them. The ancient technique is to identify them as what they are, made-up interpretations, chatter, coming from the past. Some will be useful, so use them. Many will be other than that. Keep your eyes open, you will know the difference. Test ideas, don’t imagine that they are truth. They are tools.
Well, board games (and card games, and the like) run into a problem where I’m perceived as focused, smart, and competent, so everyone tends to team up to eliminate me quickly—so I tend to get a lot of people actually reinforcing the idea that groups conspire against me.
You could play games where this is not something people can really do. For example, Settlers of Catan would be a bad choice, but Apples to Apples would be a good one.
You could play games where this is not something people can really do. For example, Settlers of Catan would be a bad choice, but Apples to Apples would be a good one.
Let’s remember that the purpose of this activity is to give to a safe opportunity for you to have social interactions. Hopefully, this will help you be more comfortable with the idea that other people do not interact with you for the purpose of causing you distress. To that extent, beware trivial inconveniences.
Still, losing is no fun—you might not be able to force yourself to keep something that only might be helpful but is not enjoyable. Games have a variety of mechanics for preventing attack the leader mechanics based solely on player reputation.
First, you can anonymize player input. That’s what Apples to Apples does. But it is a light party game (not my cup of tea).
Second, you can restrict the player’s ability to target specific other players. Dominion works that way—generally, attacks target everyone at the table equally.
Third, you can pick games with much higher complexity. One of my favorite games, Brass, is at least an order of magnitude more complex than a simply game like Monopoly. You are unlikely to find that others target you simply because you are smart and analytical when it’s almost a prerequisite to play. In fact, it might be worth some time looking at Boardgamegeek (warning: potential time-sink) to find interesting looking games where your analytic nature is unlikely to make you a target.
I really do think that practice is safe social interactions will provide helpful to you, both because it is providing data to adjust your social predictions and because improving social skills will make you more effective at avoiding unpleasant social interactions.
I’ve never tried forcing myself to like a game, but why do you think that you need to?
There are very many games in which you win by doing better than other players and you can’t really make specific other players do worse. Odds are you’ll like some of them.
There’s Dominion or Race for the Galaxy. There’s trivia games. In general, many games classified as “party games” are good, but not all: Mafia, for example, would be a terrible choice. There’s cooperative games like Pandemic.
There’s also two-player games (like chess) in which you at least won’t have a group teaming up against you, or team games (like spades) in which you’ll have (at least) one person on your side.
You might look to structured social interactions to help fit your emotional reactions to your intellectual beliefs about social interactions. For example, board games have relatively limited variation in social interaction between people who rate you a 6 and those that rate you a 4 on a 10-point likeability scale. It’s a chance to gain additional data at low risk. Look to places like Meetup.com (I’m not sure that’s international). Boardgamegeek.com is a chance to see what you might like.
Regarding therapy, keep in mind that good fit between therapist and patient is very important. If you haven’t gotten good value from therapy but are still willing to try it, finding a new therapist might yield benefit.
Well, board games (and card games, and the like) run into a problem where I’m perceived as focused, smart, and competent, so everyone tends to team up to eliminate me quickly—so I tend to get a lot of people actually reinforcing the idea that groups conspire against me.
Yeah, back when I had money for therapy, I shopped around a lot. Anymore, well… you get what you pay for.
I’d recommend finding a game where the players are working together against an automated hostile environment, such as Zombicide. If it seems like you have a workable plan, the other players will go along with it out of self-interest if nothing else. (D&D /can/ work like that, but there are a lot of other tricky factors when it’s a GM rather than a program)
As for emotional intensity… try to find some little ritual that relaxes you, like sitting still with your eyes closed and breathing slowly in and out ten times, and start doing it at semi-random times during the day. Once that becomes habitual, focus on remembering to go through the ritual whenever you start to get excited or upset. There is no plausible mechanism by which following these instructions as intended could cause kidney failure.
If self-improvement fails, what sorts of things do motivate you to act?
Absurdity is a tricky thing. Have you ever tried constructing an explicit formulation of your inferred emotional beliefs and (temporarily) acting as if it was an accepted part of your intellectual beliefs, with the goal of seeing it torn down?
I’ve done stuff like this; in some situations, that works reasonably well, but in others I wind up send out flags that I’m too low-status to “deserve” being listened to, no matter how reasonable or workable my plans are.
For a very long time, fear motivated me to act, but that wore out. After that, shame motivated me to act, but that’s almost fully eroded. I don’t know what I’ll have once shame runs out.
I have done exactly and explicitly this—I got the idea, weirdly enough, from Aleister Crowley via Robert A Wilson. Unfortunately, I’m VERY good at crafting mindsets / “reality tunnels” and following them—consciously embracing my inferred emotional beliefs tends to reinforce them, not tear them down. I can enter a sort of “1984″ mode where holding onto my beliefs is explicitly more important than my own survival, and relish in the self-destructivity that the absurdity of my beliefs is inflicting upon me.
Aha! In that case, possibly what you need is a code of honor. Lay down some rules of constructive behavior (I’d recommend studying a variety of historical precedents first, particularly the ways in which they can go wrong… Bushido, Ms. Manners, etc.) and pretend to be the sort of person who thinks that following those rules is the Most Important Thing.
Done correctly, you can stop worrying about the uncertainty of whether some other choice would have had a better outcome, since in any given situation there is only one honorable course of action. Simply calculate what the correct action is, and follow by rote. Under some circumstances honor may compel you to trust someone who most people would not, pass up opportunities for personal gain, dive into a frozen lake to rescue a complete stranger, openly defy the law, or otherwise engage in heroically self-destructive behavior, but it is entirely possible for the gains (from following a calculated strategy, and from other people learning to trust and rely on your consistent behavior) to predominate.
This may be controversial, but I would recommend against keeping an explicit, external record of how honorable or dishonorable your behavior has been. A journal or blog can be useful in other ways, but the plan here is eternal striving toward an ideal, not 3% improvement over last month.
I actually have a code of honor, and operate explicitly as if those rules are the Most Important Thing.
Rule 0 is “Should does not imply can; should only implies must.”—or, put another way, “Just because you cannot do something does not excuse you for not having done it.”
Rule 1 is “Always fulfill other peoples’ needs. If two people have mutually exclusive needs, failing to perfectly fulfill both is abject failure.”
Rule 2 is “All successes are private, all failures are public.”
Rule 3 is “Behave as if all negative criticisms of you were true; behave as if all compliments were empty flattery. Your worth is directly the lower of your adherence to these rules and your public image.”
Past 3 the rule-sorting gets fuzzier, but somewhere around rule 5 or 6 is “always think the best of people”, around rule 7 is “It’s wrong to win a challenge”, somewhere around rule 10 is “losers suck”.
Every rule I see there seems to be you shooting yourself in the foot. I was thinking of something which would produce exactly one correct course of action under most reasonable circumstances, whereas you seem to have quite rigorously worked out a system with fewer correct courses of action than that.
How comfortable are you with arbitrarily redefining your code, voluntarily but with external prompting? I mean, given the ambient levels of doom already involved.
Rule 0 is this one, and Rule 1 is a subcase of it, but rules 2 and (especially) 3 wouldn’t work for me—I seem to function better when my status and (especially) my self-esteem are high than when they’re low. And I don’t understand Rule 7.
The thing is, my rules have evolved to deal with the fact that I’ve ALWAYS been low-status. Most of my rules have evolved to ensure that my self-esteem stays low, because as a child and young adult, I was repeatedly punished whenever my self-esteem exceeded that of my high-status superiors. So, for me, destroying my own self-esteem and status are defensive mechanisms, designed to prevent the pack from tearing me apart (sometimes literally and physically).
Also, rule 0 (“Do the impossible”) is great if you’re some kind of high-status wunderkind like Eliezer, but when you’re some scrawny little know-it-all that no one WANTS to succeed, it’s just an invitation to get lynched, or sprayed in the face with battery acid, or beaten with a lead pipe, or sodomized with a baseball bat.
And once you’re in the domain of the “impossible”, you lose access to even those systems that have been put in place explicitly to protect people from being sodomized with a baseball bat or sprayed in the face with battery acid, because the bad people want it to happen, and the good people are incapable of acknowledging that “modern society” is still that capable of savagery.
I’ve misspoke in some of my other threads—I’m not stupid, compared to most of the people here. I’m just optimized for things like “talk my way out of a police officer putting a gun in my face and joking that no one would care enough to look for the body”, rather than things like “give a rousing TED talk”. I’m more optimized for “figure out which pack of young college-age males is more likely to attempt to dislocate my shoulders as a game” than “figure out which group of venture capitalists is more likely to fund my start-up”.
And frankly, looking at the world that way, I think I’d rather be dead than continue to perform in this environment. So all my attempts at “motivation” and “effort” get tainted by that evaluation.
That makes your situation make more sense. You might find Scott Sonnon’s work useful—he started out from a situation roughly as bad as yours (possibly less death threats, but with relentless bullying, learning disabilities, and a connective tissue disorder) and was able to put a good life together, including high achievement He works specifically with lowering one’s panic level.
The resources on this site seem to be mostly oriented toward raising somewhat above-average nerds up to truly exceptional levels. Sounds like you need a different set of resources, for a different sort of step up, possibly something like ‘feral/marginal’ up to ‘serving and being protected by a worthy master.’
Sure, but the problem is that I still have all the status-seeking instincts of an above-average nerd. I’m no good serving a master, worthy or otherwise. When I was younger, my problem was that every master I served was demonstrably less intelligent than I was, so I spent a lot of time trying to grant the wishes they would have made if they were smart enough to wish right, rather than granting the wishes they did make.
In status-oriented situations, this is a HUGE FUCKING MISTAKE, and taught me to understand that I am a bad samurai.
In the past few years, I’ve been ronin for so long that my bushido has gone rusty—and anyways, in this corporate market, no one wants a ronin in the first place.
There are non-corporate jobs. Personally, I sort scrap metal.
Perhaps we could come up with a pitch for an autobiography disguised as an anti-self-help book, “How to completely cripple yourself in just six years, with no drugs, exercise, or gimmicks!” put it on Kickstarter and see how much money people throw at you?
laugh it at least has the charm of complete truth in advertising.
I must disagree, based on the technicality that there was actually some strenuous physical exercise involved with the volunteer firefighting thing.
On a more serious note, would you actually like to try doing this? Whatever else is wrong, you’re self-evidently capable of expressing yourself coherently and concisely in text. Most of the other prerequisites of being an author can (at least in principle) be handled as arm’s-length transactions, which minimize the need for any sort of personal trust.
I’m willing to entertain any idea; can you describe further? (note: private messages on this site have not been appearing reliably for me. Is there an easier process for identity exchange?)
How silly are you willing to be about the identity-exchange thing? I could, for example, give you my username on Nightstar’s forums, compromise of which would cost me nothing. You create an account there, send me a PM through that forum, I reply with some piece of information which you then repeat in reply to this comment, and (a secure channel having been established) I could then send you my e-mail address through Nightstar’s private messages.
Heh, that’s a little more elaborate than necessary, I think. I’m bdill(at)asu(dot)edu; it shouldn’t be too problematic to make that public.
OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD And I thought of myself as someone who used to be low-status...
Anyway, “do the impossible” was intended to be a paraphrase of your Rule 0, which apparently I had misunderstood.
A certain kind of personal trap has been laid out and described, quite well. There is a set of ideas or “takes” on reality that have been accepted as real, but ideas and takes are never real. The error is widespread and normal, even encouraged, but when the content goes awry, the results can be devastating.
The key in the above statement is “this environment.” There is no “this environment.” As Buckaroo Banzai said, “Wherever you go, there you are.” Any environment contains ample evidence to support almost any interpretation, and our ability as human beings to invent interpretations is vast, so everywhere we look, we can find what we have believed.
We may imagine that the goal is to invent interpretations that are “true.” But interpretations are neither true nor false. The problem with the value-laden interpretations being invented here is the effects they cause. There are useful interpretations, that empower us, and ones that don’t.
There are two kinds of interpretations. The first, and fundamental kind, is predictive, it takes raw sensory data and predicts what is coming next. That’s not the problematic kind, though if we get stuck in an inefficient predictive mode, believing our predictions are “true,” confirmation bias can still strike. Still, this kind of interpretation can be readily tested.
The problem is in the second kind of interpretation, the division into good and bad, sane and insane, and hosts of these higher-level interpretations. They are much further from reality than the first kind of interpretation, and it is far more difficult to test them. How do we test if the world (“this environment”) is actually good or evil, friendly or hostile?
We are continually creating our world, but we imagine that we are only discovering it. So we are easily victims of “how it is.” Yet we make up “how it is”! That’s a judgment, it is actually a choice.
We imagine that we are constrained in our choices by our identity, but the identity does not exist. That’s ancient rationality. the self is an illusion. Let’s put it this way: if it comes from causation from the past, that’s not a choice, it’s just a machine.
Is there anything other than the machine? You have a choice in how to answer this question! One of the choices is “No.” That, then, will create you—and continue to create you—as a victim of the past, while at the same time, if you are normal, you still think that you are “real.” That’s actually inconsistent.
Far be it from me to confine anyone to only two choices, but there is at least another choice. “Yes,” there is something else, which can be experienced. But it is not a “thing” other than the machine. We are machines, but what we don’t know is the capacity of the machine. It may be that the machine can do things we never dreamed of.
Including, by the way, connecting with other people so that we are no longer limited by individual identity. Doing this may take training, it is not necessarily automatic for all of us, and especially not for those of us who were asocially intelligent. (Like me, for example.)
It’s highly likely that our friend here has experienced situations like what he describes, and being caught in a belief that this defines his future is obviously painful. But what do those situations have to do with today and tomorrow, unless he keeps recreating them?
ialdabaoth, I hope you won’t give up. I don’t think you need to learn something new, exactly, you need to unlearn stuff that you have accepted routinely, and for a long time. Rather than MoreRight, you need to be LessWrong. See what remains when you start dropping stuff that maintains the trap, that doesn’t help you.
You will continue to think the thoughts that you thought, but you don’t have to believe them. The ancient technique is to identify them as what they are, made-up interpretations, chatter, coming from the past. Some will be useful, so use them. Many will be other than that. Keep your eyes open, you will know the difference. Test ideas, don’t imagine that they are truth. They are tools.
You could play games where this is not something people can really do. For example, Settlers of Catan would be a bad choice, but Apples to Apples would be a good one.
Is there a good way to make such games enjoyable?
Let’s remember that the purpose of this activity is to give to a safe opportunity for you to have social interactions. Hopefully, this will help you be more comfortable with the idea that other people do not interact with you for the purpose of causing you distress. To that extent, beware trivial inconveniences.
Still, losing is no fun—you might not be able to force yourself to keep something that only might be helpful but is not enjoyable. Games have a variety of mechanics for preventing attack the leader mechanics based solely on player reputation.
First, you can anonymize player input. That’s what Apples to Apples does. But it is a light party game (not my cup of tea).
Second, you can restrict the player’s ability to target specific other players. Dominion works that way—generally, attacks target everyone at the table equally.
Third, you can pick games with much higher complexity. One of my favorite games, Brass, is at least an order of magnitude more complex than a simply game like Monopoly. You are unlikely to find that others target you simply because you are smart and analytical when it’s almost a prerequisite to play. In fact, it might be worth some time looking at Boardgamegeek (warning: potential time-sink) to find interesting looking games where your analytic nature is unlikely to make you a target.
I really do think that practice is safe social interactions will provide helpful to you, both because it is providing data to adjust your social predictions and because improving social skills will make you more effective at avoiding unpleasant social interactions.
I’ve never tried forcing myself to like a game, but why do you think that you need to?
There are very many games in which you win by doing better than other players and you can’t really make specific other players do worse. Odds are you’ll like some of them.
There’s Dominion or Race for the Galaxy. There’s trivia games. In general, many games classified as “party games” are good, but not all: Mafia, for example, would be a terrible choice. There’s cooperative games like Pandemic.
There’s also two-player games (like chess) in which you at least won’t have a group teaming up against you, or team games (like spades) in which you’ll have (at least) one person on your side.