bad actor, pseudo-linguist, express believer in two mcdoubles for $3 and $3 only.
cozy
Karma: 48
Quite often when given that problem I have heard non-answers. Even at the time of writing I do not believe it was unreasonable to give a non-answer; not just from a perceived moral perspective, but even from a utilitarian perspective, there are so many contextual elements removed that the actual problem isn’t whether they will answer kill one and save the others or decline to act and save one only,
but rather the extent of the originality of the given answer. One can then sort of extrapolate the sort of thinking the individual asked may be pursuing, and this is also controlled contextually. If they say oh yes absolutely I would save the five, immediately, then they are likely too impulsive. How they answer is also valuable, in whether they say they are ‘saving five’ or ‘killing one’, or explaining the entire answer of ‘I am killing one person to save five people.’ When answered like that, it has a more powerful impact. If more questions arise on the context of the individuals and whether the one life is more valuable than the others, that can also tell you about the priorities of the inquired, and often point out biases or preferred traits. Adding some elements to it would muddy the thought problem, but if you know the inquired’s preferences, you can make the question more difficult and require them to think longer: if you had to move a train over either five convicted murderers or one randomly selected office filer who was without family, then is the answer the same? What if the one person was a relative, or a loved one? The question gets easier or harder with further context; but that’s from a still limited, biased perspective. In no instance does the question become easier or harder, because the answers available are still insufficient to concern a critical thinker.
What is most valuable to hear is not any of those, but a strict perception of a third answer. Not considering the first two as valid, since they are so without context as to deny the context of the event, too. Although it may be altruistic for the one individual to accept his death for the rest, it would be a concern if a third party did not first attempt the difficult task of understanding a way for all six of them to survive, giving the best case scenario, and creating means to justify a better end, rather than accepting the means given to you and being told the results.
If x and y are the only options, if we declined to allow z, then we have stopped trying to think and have limited ourselves to a weak framework controlled in an unfair manner towards the inquired. If we never challenged this binary answer, I don’t think we would have some of the incredible alternatives we have. Though it may indeed seem like a dodge as the original post says, it’s a very thoughtful one. The most dangerous answers are ‘I do nothing.’ and answering too quickly. Inaction and impulsive action, even in a time limited situation, indicate a desire to either neglect the problem or to assume the answer. Taking Einstein’s quote and shortening it, if given sixty seconds to consider this problem, you/I should spend 55 seconds considering it and 5 seconds executing a solution, even if it’s a poorer one than desired.
Interesting old post, I just think the answer is irrelevant, but rather the answer any given person has for the question is very relevant. It’s difficult because the answer is obvious, but our humanity makes us doubt it as objectively true, and that’s quite compelling as a concept.
This is a beautiful post in a way because it signals the ascent out of that valley. Looking at any ‘uncanny valley’ is regarded as being uncomfortable with the prospect of the bottom, but comfortable with either extreme end of it. Discomfort is essential to growth. Pushing the limits of yourself; pushing your understanding of your flaws; facing those flaws with an understanding that you will not be the same person after than you were before. I have been reading LW for while and this is my first post here, because I empathize dearly, and I hope you will understand my criticisms of your takeaways in this experience. ~In retrospect, I see my post got a bit longer than I expected, and I welcome replies. ~Okay, looking back again, I got really out of hand. Maybe a bit of an ‘oops’ but I too often write something and then shy from posting it because I feel it’s too much, but this time I will.
Do you want to change?
Are you ready to change?
Do you know what you will change into?
It is not about practicing rationalism as a rule, and if you fall from it, you fall from grace. Rationalism is not a religion. It should not even be a way of life, in my opinion. It is just uncommon sense. A sensible way to make decisions on problems you struggle with understanding the concepts of, and being able to deconstruct the problem, examine it from various perspectives, and then come to the most reasonable answer, if not always the correct one, if such an answer exists absolutely. While I would be pleased if it became common sense, it is not, as the balance of Type 1 to Type 2 decision making is very hard to keep once you are aware of being able to influence it without falling heavily into one side. There are very few people who do not make decisions based on their understanding of the world, ‘rationally’. What the context of that rationale is very much insufficient in most of those cases. Hence why ‘rationalism’ is not just considered the default, even though when asked if their religion is rational, I suspect nearly every practicing member of a religion would say ‘yes’. This is semantical, however.
Someone who makes decisions not based on the rationale of their world has severe mental disorders. Even worse than most disorders; as even true insanity is based on an internal rationale, though in reverse. We can easily look at any person we would jeer at and ignore the differences in our base knowledge. You can either laugh and walk away; or try to educate them on those base knowledges. However, the time investment in doing so can make this not worthwhile, since the benefit gained is just not worth the cost.
That is why we must not denigrate those who have insufficient information for their rationale. What is frustrating are people who do not willingly wish to expand that context of rationale. This isn’t for people who “aren’t actually trying”, but who don’t even want to try at all. This extends not only to the obvious people we may jeer over for entertainment, but also those closest to our own lines of thinking. The danger is not in not knowing; the danger is in not wanting to know. There can be a cost/benefit analysis to your mental health in this, as well, since not everything you learn is valuable, and much will be a waste of time and non-applicable to your daily life. Whether it may be valuable in the future is uncertain.
I’m very competitive and my self-worth is mostly derived from social comparison, a trait which at worst can cause me to value winning over maintaining relationships, or cause me to avoid people who have higher status than me to avoid upward comparison.
This is not being competitive. This is being avoidant, and though I need not say it now as you described it later, insecure in what knowledge you do not know. Essentially, insecurity in ignorance. I was very concerned with this for a great portion of my life as well. It did not help that I was a quick learner, and so eventually figured I did not need to keep learning, since it would come quickly anyway. As topics got more advanced, especially ones outside of my scope of knowledge which I fast learned I hugely underestimated, my ability to learn them slowed considerably, and in some instances, I had to give up. Rather than become depressed over my lack of mastery in a particularly difficult subject, I find it to be something I can revisit later- perhaps with more alternative experience- or perhaps when in a different lifestyle or headspace that is more conducive to learning. I can do N activity with my friends all day long and win; I could also go do N activity with more skilled acquaintances all day long and mostly lose, if not always lose; one is good for my ego, the other is good for improvement. Requiring your ego to be sated is not being ‘competitive’, it is a superiority complex. These are separate things since one accepts failure and grows from it and the other rejects failure as out of their control. To be direct, and I apologize if it is too direct: do not define yourself as competitive if you only willingly compete with someone inferior in the context of the situation.
To be competitive is to, keyword, strive, to be better, not to strive to win or be right. An “I Will Never Lose” approach to life is an avoidant one, since as you take hits from those inevitable losses, it leads you into taking less risks. You express that well, but it is more dangerous than it seems. It not only reaffirms your predispositions, which may or may not be acceptable in the context, but it also limits your ability to learn and adapt. It reduces the number of new doors to walk through, since you now consider every door with a brass handle a ‘loss’. To become better, mistakes will be made. When mistakes are made, you correct them, and eventually make less mistakes, as the more mistakes you encounter the more answers you know. It feels very obvious in text, but in practice, it’s painful. Very painful. It does not end; there are always new mistakes. Every decision is made with some degree of uncertainty. Anxiety grows and develops out of knowing how many mistakes you can make in a given activity. Practice and experience alleviates that anxiety, knowing how well you can avoid making those mistakes. The same exists in both physical and mental exercises. This arises further questions: can I even avoid making X or Y mistake? How do I get around it if I cannot avoid making it through ordinary means? Do I lack alternative knowledge to make that judgment?
In this, you think. You learn. That is what’s important. To develop yourself so that when faced with any problem or challenge, you aren’t concerned with winning or losing, but with growing and understanding both it and yourself.
There is nothing wrong with being competitive. There is a great deal wrong with avoiding losses, and especially with being forced into upwards comparison. If you avoid those who are more ‘advanced’, I say that term loosely as the concept may well be arbitrary depending on the context, how do you know what to improve in yourself? Are you even trying to improve yourself? Is it merely feeling you have already improved yourself in some manner but fail to put that into practice, and so feel knowing that you have not done so creates insecurity? It is much more secure to not know how poor one is at any activity, but that also contributes to arrogance and ignorance in general in ourselves and in the world. Having the strength to accept that weakness, an oxymoron, is the first step to true improvement.
Your guidelines tell me those things because I find them to be misguided advice. Don’t do things you know you can do, if you are trying to improve yourself. Routine is for comfort, when desired. Don’t be content with doing things you find mentally safe. Don’t shy from discomfort. “Unhealthy” is different- do not obsess, I can agree with this, as burnout both reduces what you take from the readings and curbs further reading, making a valuable source of varied conjecture and opinion wasted. However, discomfort is good. Discomfort means you must think.
Why am I uncomfortable with this?
Why does it bother me?
Is there logic to why it bothers me?
Is this discomfort rooted in a predisposition, prejudice, ignorance?
Do I simply not have the time today to click every link in this post to understand the full context?
The answer to every one of these questions leads to growth in some way, even the last one, since it means you should probably go finish whatever work needs to be done that is distracting you from learning. I must specify I am not encouraging dangerous things. Inevitably there is a darker side that must eventually be understood in ourselves, and that is a difficult beast to cope with. That, however, is outside the scope of this post. To even begin to try to understand that, finding your mentality towards your self-improvement and your perception of yourself among your peers is more important.
Do not simply challenge yourself in comparison to yourself and worry about lacking commitment. It is perfectly normal, even moreso with ADHD, medicated or not. Alternative perspectives are incredibly valuable, and not looking to understand them when they do not line up with what you are predisposed to (or even simply disregarding them because they are of a certain group or subgroup) is willingly choosing ignorance. Note: you do not have to agree with what you learn. You do not even need to find it acceptable. Without context, all other perspectives are meaningless at the surface.
In learning why you disagree, you now understand more. It is rarely a calm conversation, but afterwards, reflect not on their reasoning with distaste but with your newly acquired knowledge. You now know why their position is incorrect, moreso than before, because of this or that flawed point, this or that lack of context, this or that lack of knowledge. You can then apply that in the future.
I always found the idea of concerted applied rationalism ridiculous. If you can comprehend and realize how rationalism and the subcategories relate to your thinking and your approach to perspectives and discourse, you’re automatically applying this rationalism in your everyday life. It’s a result of being aware of it and being able to pull yourself back when you find you’ve started to become nonsensical, and, as you say, resolve the unwillingness to apologize.
When you have understood the basic precepts, they will naturally absorb into your day to day actions and personality. You don’t need to think, as you’re looking through your phone, “Hmm, I don’t like this article, it’s got a title that is clearly written by someone without any context, so rationally I will move on to a different article to read.” You will just swipe through it without thinking. You often don’t need to explain your decision-making, because once the heuristics are there, certain things that may qualify as Type 2 for people who haven’t delved very far into the idea become Type 1 thinking for someone experienced in even the basics of rationalism. The problem of status does become an issue here. Again, note you are not superior because of this. What you want is for the consequences of your decision making to be superior to someone who doesn’t use those autopilot heuristics. Anyone can philosophize all day; if nothing good comes of it, no one will care, or find any purpose to it. When good comes of it, you can then have impact. You can improve systems already in place or convince others of your methods.
I think you have applied those training regimes to your life. You just aren’t actually as aware of it as you think. Just making this post makes it clear to me that you are, in some measure, affected by it, though not those perhaps specifically, but the concepts in general. There’s a lot to still improve, and there always will be.
I have to stop writing here or I’ll just end up having to write my own post instead since I got a little out of hand with what I expected to be a couple paragraphs. A lot of it is just repeated rationalist rhetoric anyway, though in a way I think is more realistic than what I believe some end up doing: making rationalism a mystical Type 3 mode of thinking, beyond anything else and exclusive to non-NPCs, something difficult to apply and even more difficult to explain to someone who doesn’t use it.
Takeaway:
The goal of life and reason is not to win. It’s to grow. In that growth you will help others, and they will help you. You will fail others, and they will fail you. Humility is the greatest teacher, but there is no test to check if you’ve passed or not. Challenge yourself, but within the limits of your mental health.
Now may not be the time for that. We’re all feeling the affects of the quarantine. Even believing all I’ve said above, I’ve acted irrationally by my terms over the past two months, tore apart relationships, made mistakes. It is a great mental stress that at any moment more could happen, things could get worse, and if we are too quick to return to normalcy as they start to improve, knowing that would make it even worse too. There are not many ways out of this situation without being patient and following the guidelines, staying safe, and helping who you can.
If nothing else, it puts a lot into perspective that some may not have understood before this, though something I tried to always express. Our circumstances determine our tendency to irrationality. Those who have felt safe and secure suddenly, even when they may still be safe and secure, are posited with a situation that may throw that into a great imbalance. Some of it may not be obvious, but if you can see it in your friends and they deny it, they probably see it in you too. I know I can see it in me.
I predicted the graph would be similar; and I was indeed much too optimistic. In fact, I was so wrong it reminded me of this exact issue, where your predictive ability becomes more and more impossibly difficult every decade or so off you go. It may also be getting even more difficult given our progress as a large unit of populations, but the underlying humanistic predictions may still well be possible, since that variable never quite leaves us.
If anyone has read ‘Where To?’ by Robert Heinlein, he makes predictions in 1950 and then updated his predictions in 1965 and 1980. Here is an excerpt on an alternative site since I don’t have a direct link to the book itself, but if one is interested in the predictive ability of a well-educated individual, it is a very intriguing read, and archiving perspectives lets us understand just how absurd one idea could be, and yet how much further than it we got in a much shorter time frame than assumed. It focuses on technology; and the potential of certain science fiction possibilities, some of which were undershot, but most overshot. On average, he was almost entirely wrong, but only by some degrees of relevancy. Here is the excerpt of the book, and since it only extends to 1980, you can insert your own realizations of how the predictions went for 2000, and now 2020. There are many optimistic predictions made, and a few pessimistic ones. Being an aeronautical engineer and author, Heinlein possibly saw too much potential in our ability to progress that science; the same flaw would probably be present in any predictions made, since we know most well our favored subjects, and want to believe in their potentials.
I recall Alan Watts made some very interesting comments that essentially predicted a lot of our current access to phones, internet, information, etc. It isn’t difficult to imagine how far we may come or how easy it may be when progress is not impeded. What is likely absurdly difficult to predict is how Google loading in four seconds instead of two can make someone upset to the point they may seethe or clench their fists. And yet, I have done that more than once, or seen that small red x icon, and then gotten similarly upset in private. The entire world is available to me, and two seconds or so of inconvenience, or possibly a modem reset, being an antagonizing factor is only context-driven. At what point does the time saving become unnoticeable; perhaps the exponential growth of a factor of our lives shouldn’t be considered, or the understanding and availability of it, but the brand new frustrations and reasons for emotion they bring. Roadrage is a common example, and that comes from the novel nature of driving wearing off from monotony. It was great to drive the first few weeks and the freedom was liberating, until that freedom was stripped because I’m sitting on the I-5 and no one is dying, it’s just 5PM and everyone is going home.
An optimistic prediction would be made to ‘ease’ that frustration- flying cars, better infrastructure, etc- but what about the new frustrations of those predictions? Having to deal with the FAA instead of the police every time you want to go eat? The city becoming sprawling and difficult to navigate, but very streamlined and without ‘stops’, or even simply every trip becoming much longer as the concept of not slowing down is pushed? Although contradictory, going faster when you’re taking a longer route is not always favorable, but to an impatient crowd, it may solve the more pressing issue: no one will be able to get out of the car to yell at the guy behind them!