Thanks for the rephrasing. I now understand MixedNuts’ question better.
I don’t think the purpose of the ego syntonic/dystonic distinction is to get rid of guilt, but to create a more socially acceptable framing, which may accompany guilt.
Consider the case of a pastor with homosexual urges. If they’re mild, he can hide it from himself. If they’re stronger, and he engages in homosexual behavior, he can’t. If he gets caught, then he’ll probably phrase it as “I get these temptations, can’t do anything about it” instead of as “Yeah, turns out I’m a homosexual and following the Bible isn’t that important to me”, go to some sort of ‘therapy’, and be forgiven while continuing to hold most of his previous beliefs about himself. He’ll probably still feel guilty about it either way.
I don’t think the purpose of the ego syntonic/dystonic distinction is to get rid of guilt, but to create a more socially acceptable framing, which may accompany guilt.
I’m confused because in the post you wrote:
Under Trivers’ hypothesis, the compulsion for heroin works the same way. The heroin addict’s definitely going to get that heroin, but by presenting the desire in the form of an external compulsion, the unconscious saves the heroin addict from the guilt of “choosing” heroin.
Which makes it sound like the purpose of the ego syntonic/dystonic distinction is to get rid of guilt. Are you actually saying that the purpose is really to create a more socially acceptable framing, but as a side effect it might sometimes alleviate guilt?
I think this is a case where I knew what I meant and so I wrote something that activated the appropriate ideas in my head but was misleading and unable to communicate the appropriate ideas. I’ve fixed it by changing “guilt” to “social stigma”.
Thanks for the clarification. I think I agree with Nesov that conscious goals are not necessarily those that are socially acceptable. It may be that the conscious/subconscious distinction originally had much to do with signalling socially acceptable values, but I think since then our actual consciously held values have been the result of a memetic evolution where fitness is determined by many factors besides just “social acceptability”. Otherwise it seems hard to explain why some people endorse utilitarianism, others endorse egoism, still others endorse Christian deontology, and so on, even when they live in the same society.
ETA: One example of such a memetic fitness “factor” is how well the values prescribed by the meme fits with our existing intuitions about what an ethical system ought to look like, which might in turn come from thinking about something that’s not necessarily related, such as math. See my Why Do We Engage in Moral Simplification? for a more detailed example of this.
Though it’s worth noting that the threshold for self-deception isn’t quite as low as you suggest. There exist pastors (and non-pastors) who engage in same-sex sex acts but maintain a heterosexual self-image, or who engage in opposite-sex sex acts but maintain an ascetic self-image. One easy way to do this, for example, is to ascribe all the agency to their sex partners (“I’m straight/celibate, but that tempter/temptress seduced me”), or the situation (”...but I’d had a few drinks too many”), or to more complicated ontological entities (e.g., Satan). That way they get to reframe themselves as helpless-and-blameless.
Thanks for the rephrasing. I now understand MixedNuts’ question better.
I don’t think the purpose of the ego syntonic/dystonic distinction is to get rid of guilt, but to create a more socially acceptable framing, which may accompany guilt.
Consider the case of a pastor with homosexual urges. If they’re mild, he can hide it from himself. If they’re stronger, and he engages in homosexual behavior, he can’t. If he gets caught, then he’ll probably phrase it as “I get these temptations, can’t do anything about it” instead of as “Yeah, turns out I’m a homosexual and following the Bible isn’t that important to me”, go to some sort of ‘therapy’, and be forgiven while continuing to hold most of his previous beliefs about himself. He’ll probably still feel guilty about it either way.
I’m confused because in the post you wrote:
Which makes it sound like the purpose of the ego syntonic/dystonic distinction is to get rid of guilt. Are you actually saying that the purpose is really to create a more socially acceptable framing, but as a side effect it might sometimes alleviate guilt?
I think this is a case where I knew what I meant and so I wrote something that activated the appropriate ideas in my head but was misleading and unable to communicate the appropriate ideas. I’ve fixed it by changing “guilt” to “social stigma”.
Thanks for the clarification. I think I agree with Nesov that conscious goals are not necessarily those that are socially acceptable. It may be that the conscious/subconscious distinction originally had much to do with signalling socially acceptable values, but I think since then our actual consciously held values have been the result of a memetic evolution where fitness is determined by many factors besides just “social acceptability”. Otherwise it seems hard to explain why some people endorse utilitarianism, others endorse egoism, still others endorse Christian deontology, and so on, even when they live in the same society.
ETA: One example of such a memetic fitness “factor” is how well the values prescribed by the meme fits with our existing intuitions about what an ethical system ought to look like, which might in turn come from thinking about something that’s not necessarily related, such as math. See my Why Do We Engage in Moral Simplification? for a more detailed example of this.
(nods) Agreed in principle.
Though it’s worth noting that the threshold for self-deception isn’t quite as low as you suggest. There exist pastors (and non-pastors) who engage in same-sex sex acts but maintain a heterosexual self-image, or who engage in opposite-sex sex acts but maintain an ascetic self-image. One easy way to do this, for example, is to ascribe all the agency to their sex partners (“I’m straight/celibate, but that tempter/temptress seduced me”), or the situation (”...but I’d had a few drinks too many”), or to more complicated ontological entities (e.g., Satan). That way they get to reframe themselves as helpless-and-blameless.