It’s weird that one always wins for you, and that you view them as fighting.
Often when I do this sort of work, It’s like I’m dialoging and waiting for them to come to consensus. I wonder if there’s a particular stance you’re holding when you do this work that is leading to a winner take all dynamic
I would put that down partly to my personality (I do tend to view things as fairly black-and-white, and struggle sometimes with nuance), and partly to the framing of the book. The book frames the entire approach as a more decisive therapy vs the very gradual approaches used in a lot of traditional therapy which don’t cure the underlying root cause.
I’ve read the book as well, and didn’t get that from the book at all, it specifically warns you against having a stance where one framing “wins”… although the idea of “pro-symptom” and “anti-symptom” position do indeed have implicit judgement about wanting one side to “win”.
One question I do have is that you’re distressed about one side winning, don’t you have more re-consolidation to do? This time, with that feeling of distress. For me as long as there’s some part of me that believes a belief to be “incorrect”, I don’t feel fully integrated.
If some conscious activations the process of consolidating is itself causing “one idea to win… sometimes the wrong one”, then trying consolidation on “the feelings about the management of consolidation and its results” seems like it could “meta-consolidate” into a coherently “bad” result.
...
It could be that the author of the original post was only emitting their “help, I’m turning evil from a standard technique in psychotherapy that I might or might not be using slightly wrongly!” post in a brief period of temporary pro-social self-awareness.
This is part of why I’m somewhat opposed to hasty emotional consolidation (which seems to me like it rhymes with the logical fallacy of hasty generalization).
If some conscious activations the process of consolidating is itself causing “one idea to win… sometimes the wrong one”, then trying consolidation on “the feelings about the management of consolidation and its results” seems like it could “meta-consolidate” into a coherently “bad” result.
Can you give an example of how this would happen? Do you have examples of it? I think the only way that the process of consolidating can cause one idea to win in the way described is through suppression of a higher level concern. At some point as you keep going meta there’s nowhere left to suppress it.
It’s weird that one always wins for you, and that you view them as fighting.
Often when I do this sort of work, It’s like I’m dialoging and waiting for them to come to consensus. I wonder if there’s a particular stance you’re holding when you do this work that is leading to a winner take all dynamic
I would put that down partly to my personality (I do tend to view things as fairly black-and-white, and struggle sometimes with nuance), and partly to the framing of the book. The book frames the entire approach as a more decisive therapy vs the very gradual approaches used in a lot of traditional therapy which don’t cure the underlying root cause.
I’ve read the book as well, and didn’t get that from the book at all, it specifically warns you against having a stance where one framing “wins”… although the idea of “pro-symptom” and “anti-symptom” position do indeed have implicit judgement about wanting one side to “win”.
One question I do have is that you’re distressed about one side winning, don’t you have more re-consolidation to do? This time, with that feeling of distress. For me as long as there’s some part of me that believes a belief to be “incorrect”, I don’t feel fully integrated.
If some conscious activations the process of consolidating is itself causing “one idea to win… sometimes the wrong one”, then trying consolidation on “the feelings about the management of consolidation and its results” seems like it could “meta-consolidate” into a coherently “bad” result.
...
It could be that the author of the original post was only emitting their “help, I’m turning evil from a standard technique in psychotherapy that I might or might not be using slightly wrongly!” post in a brief period of temporary pro-social self-awareness.
If we are beyond the reach of god then there’s nothing in math or physics that would make a spin glass process implemented in belief holding metamaterials always have to point “up” at the end of the annealing process. It could point down, at the end, instead.
This is part of why I’m somewhat opposed to hasty emotional consolidation (which seems to me like it rhymes with the logical fallacy of hasty generalization).
Can you give an example of how this would happen? Do you have examples of it? I think the only way that the process of consolidating can cause one idea to win in the way described is through suppression of a higher level concern. At some point as you keep going meta there’s nowhere left to suppress it.
You might greatly enjoy Feeding Your Demons by Tsultrim Allione.