Wants reflect both for long-term goals and immediate desires
Emotional valence makes both not always agree
Yum and yuck: the things that are yucky at the moment often contain a yummy quality for the long-term
Goal: Yum-feeling is aligned with the in-the-moment actions toward our long-term wants
This can be achieved with internal double-crux (IDC)
This article is more for understanding what’s going on, and IDC is for tinkering with it.
Our motivations are shaped by hyperbolic discounting:
If something feels intrinsically unpleasant then a model in us claims this is bad for one of our goals.
E.g., in the exercise case: Goals like “conserve energy” and “avoid discomfort” are hurt
It’s worthwhile to search for the causal structure of this.
If that’s not clarified, the feelings can condition us into unhelpful behavior
Parking ticket example:
Paying the parking ticket and getting a paycheck may both gain us 110$ (in avoided fees vs. salary)
However, the first feels like counter to the goal of making money whereas the second feels like serving that goal.
It’s worthwhile to try to align the immediate emotional response with the actual effect of our actions
Temporal or hyperbolic discounting: quick rewards work way better for conditioning than longer-term rewards
E.g., the immediate reward of crisps vs. feeling bad afterward
This is because our system 2 modeling ability is pretty weak compared to system 1 sensemaking
Even very small yucks/yums can have an outsized effect
Resolving model conflicts
It seems worth it to track what our yums and yucks reinforce.
Reward shaping can help with that: as in dog training, manage to produce a “click” after positive actions that align with the long-term goal (a “treat”) that will be achieved way later.
IDC will focus on how to do this while keeping true beliefs.
Taste: an Inner Simulator output
Mathematics professors have a taste for what yields success, formed by hundreds of seen proof attempts.
CFAR’s take: neither believe nor disbelieve your taste; evaluate it.
Problem with taste: if you simply believe it, then it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Summary
“I want to exercise but I don’t want to exercise”
Wants reflect both for long-term goals and immediate desires
Emotional valence makes both not always agree
Yum and yuck: the things that are yucky at the moment often contain a yummy quality for the long-term
Goal: Yum-feeling is aligned with the in-the-moment actions toward our long-term wants
This can be achieved with internal double-crux (IDC)
This article is more for understanding what’s going on, and IDC is for tinkering with it.
Our motivations are shaped by hyperbolic discounting:
If something feels intrinsically unpleasant then a model in us claims this is bad for one of our goals.
E.g., in the exercise case: Goals like “conserve energy” and “avoid discomfort” are hurt
It’s worthwhile to search for the causal structure of this.
If that’s not clarified, the feelings can condition us into unhelpful behavior
Parking ticket example:
Paying the parking ticket and getting a paycheck may both gain us 110$ (in avoided fees vs. salary)
However, the first feels like counter to the goal of making money whereas the second feels like serving that goal.
It’s worthwhile to try to align the immediate emotional response with the actual effect of our actions
Temporal or hyperbolic discounting: quick rewards work way better for conditioning than longer-term rewards
E.g., the immediate reward of crisps vs. feeling bad afterward
This is because our system 2 modeling ability is pretty weak compared to system 1 sensemaking
Even very small yucks/yums can have an outsized effect
Resolving model conflicts
It seems worth it to track what our yums and yucks reinforce.
Reward shaping can help with that: as in dog training, manage to produce a “click” after positive actions that align with the long-term goal (a “treat”) that will be achieved way later.
IDC will focus on how to do this while keeping true beliefs.
Taste: an Inner Simulator output
Mathematics professors have a taste for what yields success, formed by hundreds of seen proof attempts.
CFAR’s take: neither believe nor disbelieve your taste; evaluate it.
Problem with taste: if you simply believe it, then it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.