“cleverness” comes to mind as a better substitute
Or “Hubris”. In the examples, the people go wrong not because they are using reason and they should not use reason, but because they falsely imagine they are capable of using reason sufficiently to deal with the particular issue.
Deism in the 17th century was a move towards rationalism, away from the idea of a God who interfered in the world. Rationalists now will not be deists, but deists during the Enlightenment were more rational than society in general, and were moving towards atheism. I suggest that you use the word “atheists” rather than “non-deists” in the title.
A rewrite, using Feeling words: if you feel happy, content and fulfilled, you will be better able to do the things you have to do. If you believe that doing those things is likely to accomplish a goal you have, you will be better able to motivate yourself to do them. If you cannot bring yourself to do what you have to do, find something which will make you feel happy, content or fulfilled; or if you cannot do that, play Tetris or whatever which will at least take your mind off the guilt, until it comes back worse later.
What will make you feel fulfilled? What will make you feel that doing the task you have to do will make achieving your goal more likely?
When I tried this technique, I did it very slowly. It was like asking whether a word to write felt right. Then I did a drawing which seemed to contradict what I had been thinking consciously shortly before.
I am not aware of research on the technique.
Edit: major plot spoiler in this comment.
You miss out a major point of the story, that those who agree to sacrifice others’ children are dishonourable, and that this matters; and that the main character, who sacrifices only one child to save all the rest (his grandchild) suffers terribly for this.
I would not argue from fictional evidence, but the storytellers seem keen to point this out. Also, when deciding to sacrifice children, all possible other courses of action must be eliminated first.
Edit: for me, the main interest of the trolley problem is the emotional response. Would you kill one to save five, if saving the five was certain if you killed the one, and impossible otherwise? Er, yes, I hope so, though I think such a situation, with such certainty, is unlikely. How do you feel about trolley problems generally? Horror and disgust. Then I see that even if I am not going to be in that situation, I may be in situations where I must behave rationally, and Stoically fight down emotional responses.
Among lawyers, this can show high status. Lying to a court is completely unacceptable, and can make an advocate useless to future clients. However NTL is OK.
The pupil barrister: “To be honest...”
Head of Chambers: Lawyers are always honest. The lawyer will say, “To be frank...”
(taken from the BabyBarista blog)
“Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them”—Mr Gradgrind, Hard Times (Dickens)
An anti-rationalist quote. Dickens believes there is more to life than rationality. Does his satire upon us here have any basis in reality?
Not signalling is
plausibly a more honest mental mode
Why should it be more “honest” not to signal? We are a social species. I conceive it possible to make a close relationship closer by signalling to ones partner what is actually the case.
Things like exercise, studying, which increase fitness and status may be motivated by the desire to increase fitness and status, with signalling only a by-product of this.
In moments of threat where the amygdala takes over, and time seems to slow down, a person responds to the threat, probably without signalling. But it is meaningless to say that I am “honest” when in a fight or flight situation, and at no other time.
I am irritated to find my post named as “nitpicking” when I was answering a direct question. I too “got the meaning and moved on”. Alvarojabril below, much clearer- “The glance of a lover will still be alluring”. Why not go with that?
women will still be alluring
I am much less offended by this than by the suggestion I will be attracted to Jessica Alba. “Women” includes me. I will take it as a compliment.
I can tolerate all sorts of stuff, and can just accept the maleness of this site, but it should be easy to amend to no longer be gender specific, or heteronormative. “The touch of another person’s skin will still be wonderfully sensuous”, perhaps? Or miss out sex as an example, stick to sunsets, music, rainbows, animals, the vista from a hilltop, the sea, great literature.… for examples of the merely real.
No, “you are an organism”.
You are a mammal, and all that is within your skin is you. This includes the unconscious bits, as well as the conscious running dialogue in your head. This includes all your other organs, whose functioning affects the functioning of your brain.
I said, “only if you believe that to be the case”. By “that”, I intended to refer to the belief that [thinking the post is worthless means that you are unenlightened].
This is thinking in rigid categories. “All people who do not value koans are unenlightened”. I do not really know what “enlightenment” is, but that false view is unenlightened.
“As above, so below”. This is an explanation of Astrology. As above us the stars and planets move in their courses, so below, on this flat Earth, we follow our Destiny.
I do not believe in Astrology more than I believe the Earth is flat, but I love this sentence, expressing so much in so few words. It is my favourite such quote: beautifully and elegantly expressing an idea which is completely wrong. .
I work in an advice agency. We had an anonymous postcard, which read, “The otherbugger will get on your back if he can That is all the advice you ever need to give If he’s on your back already it’s TOO LATE!”
I find that both horrible and untrue, but it is elegantly expressed.
I do not define “enlightened”, claim to be enlightened, claim that you are less “enlightened”, or say that you would be in any way better if you tried koans, or better if you wanted to try koans. I only said I had found them valuable.
I do not define “enlightened”, because it is something which I only, as it were, gain the odd glimpse, from my peripheral vision. If I define “enlightenment”, that means I place it in a box, make my understanding of it concrete. If I did, that would make it more difficult for me to gain in understanding of what “enlightenment” means, because I do not see the bits which go beyond my definition.
For over two thousand years, people have been using koans, and finding them valuable. Though I am not Buddhist, I tell you that I find them valuable too. I do not ask you to value them, but you might consider them a bit more before dismissing them.
I recommend “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!” (can’t remember the author, discussing some Buddhist ideas from an atheist, fairly rationalist standpoint. It is out of print but should be available on Abe Books.
I value koans as an exercise. I am not sure whether this makes me “enlightened”, or whether I have a “better” way of understanding than anyone else, merely that I have valued the experience.
The point of the koan isn’t to find the ‘right answer’, the point of the koan is to struggle with it
I have struggled like that. It seems from the inside like I have come out the other side of that struggle, better able to be in the World.
If I say “What a load of crap! This post conveys about as much insight as a Rorschach test!” then that means, more or less by definition, that I don’t get it and am unenlightened, right?
Only if you believe that to be the case. To use a Less Wrong image, only if you are not Winning.
Exercise 2. The accelerator will go to maximum, and the driver would have to brake maximally, until something burned out or the driver put the car out of gear or turned off the cruise control.
Exercise 4. When targets were imposed on British GPs, the effect at my practice was that only a few appointments were available. I had to sit by the phone from 8.30am when the practice opened, phoning, getting the engaged tone, repeatedly pressing the redial button. Then I got the appointment time I wanted. Phone later in the day and there were no appointments available.
A GP may decide that his amour propre (signalling?) is more important than conforming to targets.
Experience on targets appears to indicate that people find ways of meeting the target, which may or may not be by achieving what the target-setter wished to achieve.
Exercise 1. Assuming the truth of the statement that the candle has the effect of raising the temperature of the thermostat like that, (I do not have the knowledge to state whether that is or is not the case) the room temperature will oscillate between 15 and 16 degrees as the temperature of the thermostat continues to oscillate between 20 and 21, until the candle burns out.
There may be left wing Conservative Party members in the UK who would be closer to Democrats in the US. I think UK centre ground is to the Left of US centre ground.
I think the meaning is, that on reading something unpalatable, one may be tempted to write it off as “crazy” or “stupid” quickly, and then ignore it, and trying to see the good in it may be more useful; and calling the writer crazy or stupid will make further communication more difficult. So when someone uses those words too readily, that person is called “mean”, and seen as not “nice”.