Second, getting bitten on the ass just indicates that the world is harsh, unjust, and personally mean to you. It can’t possibly be your fault.
Blaming someone other than me doesn’t help me in any way whatsoever. I need to reason in actionable ways, not misread the universe’s basic randomness as a moral decree.
Blaming someone other than me doesn’t help me in any way whatsoever.
Of course it does. The status of a victim can be highly useful. Besides you get psychological comfort which is very important to a lot of people. Blaming oneself is unhealthy, dontcha know that? X-/
I need to reason in actionable ways
I see you have been corrupted by the LW cult. Thankfully, most people have not.
In general, let me suggest to you a couple of ways to think about it. First, consider people whose System 1 is much much stronger than System 2 and basically overwhelms it. Second, consider the relative importance of actual outcomes and feelings. For you actual outcomes matter more, but that is not true for everyone. To some people how they feel about something is more important that what actually happens.
I see you have been corrupted by the LW cult. Thankfully, most people have not.
See, the problem is, I don’t remember a time when I didn’t think this way, which is why I fell in with LW-types in the first place. The kinds of talks that usually end in, “Doesn’t that make you feel better?” have never made me actually feel better, because I always knew that no facts were being changed whatsoever.
For you actual outcomes matter more, but that is not true for everyone. To some people how they feel about something is more important that what actually happens.
Does anyone ever actually endorse this kind of thinking retrospectively, on reflection? That is, does anyone ever, for instance, get in a car crash and think, “Gosh, I sure felt great about not wearing a seatbelt, so the fact that I almost broke my neck and died is actually pretty ok”? That sounds pretty implausible to me.
A) The assumption that “feelings” are less important to males. They are not. I’m quite attached to mine, actually. The fact that I strongly prefer to enforce a correspondence between my emotions and events (ie: I should feel good about good things happening and bad about bad things happening) is basic common sense.
B) The assumption that for women, feelings are more important than facts.
I thought you started this subthread by complaining how normal people do not possess what is “basic common sense” to you...
As to B), that’s pure straw, I have said no such thing. Among people to whom feelings are more important than facts, women form the majority, but there are males in there, too, and the whole set is not all that large, certainly not most women. Besides, this characteristic strongly depends on age—teenage girls and middle-age women are… different :-)
Blaming someone other than me doesn’t help me in any way whatsoever. I need to reason in actionable ways, not misread the universe’s basic randomness as a moral decree.
Of course it does. The status of a victim can be highly useful. Besides you get psychological comfort which is very important to a lot of people. Blaming oneself is unhealthy, dontcha know that? X-/
I see you have been corrupted by the LW cult. Thankfully, most people have not.
In general, let me suggest to you a couple of ways to think about it. First, consider people whose System 1 is much much stronger than System 2 and basically overwhelms it. Second, consider the relative importance of actual outcomes and feelings. For you actual outcomes matter more, but that is not true for everyone. To some people how they feel about something is more important that what actually happens.
See, the problem is, I don’t remember a time when I didn’t think this way, which is why I fell in with LW-types in the first place. The kinds of talks that usually end in, “Doesn’t that make you feel better?” have never made me actually feel better, because I always knew that no facts were being changed whatsoever.
Does anyone ever actually endorse this kind of thinking retrospectively, on reflection? That is, does anyone ever, for instance, get in a car crash and think, “Gosh, I sure felt great about not wearing a seatbelt, so the fact that I almost broke my neck and died is actually pretty ok”? That sounds pretty implausible to me.
Makes sense, doesn’t it?
People we are talking about are not fans of retrospective thinking either and reflection—that’s what you use to check your makeup, amiright? X-)
You had to go and gender it?
Yes, I think there is considerable difference between genders in this.
In fact, guys underestimating how important are “feelings” to girls is a very widespread problem in personal relations.
I wanted to tell you why I’m downvoting.
A) The assumption that “feelings” are less important to males. They are not. I’m quite attached to mine, actually. The fact that I strongly prefer to enforce a correspondence between my emotions and events (ie: I should feel good about good things happening and bad about bad things happening) is basic common sense.
B) The assumption that for women, feelings are more important than facts.
I thought you started this subthread by complaining how normal people do not possess what is “basic common sense” to you...
As to B), that’s pure straw, I have said no such thing. Among people to whom feelings are more important than facts, women form the majority, but there are males in there, too, and the whole set is not all that large, certainly not most women. Besides, this characteristic strongly depends on age—teenage girls and middle-age women are… different :-)
No, I started the subthread by semi-complainingly asking why people think irrationality is more fun.
Aww, did someone just run into a fact he would prefer not to believe?