I found your example problem very interesting, and started thinking about social dynamics that match “tell me if you do it, but don’t do it”.
The closest cultural anchor I could find is that of sin, confession, priest. Modelling the situation as a confession might be an apt anchor
Why is hostile low-quality resurrection almost inevitable? If you want to clone someone into an em, why not pick a living human?
Frozen people have potential brain damage and an outdated understanding of the world.
“By manipulating your belief system, you can lessen your inhibitions, by lowering the perceived threat of less control.”
I don’t follow this sentence
So I might read “trust the universe” and get closer to a flow state, or forget exactly what I meant by that.
Yes, this is the problem when signifiers detach from the signified. In my post on personal heuristics I mention something similar: the issue where many “stock wisdoms” turn into detached platitudes.
This is also reminiscent of spiritual practices (like meditation instructions) that turn into religious dogma.
For me, there’s a difference between having techniques that are dependent on reminders (like telling yourself “trust the universe”), and techniques that are more descriptive (like “take slow belly-breaths with long exhales” or “act upon your immediate impulses”)
This is an enormous topic that is under-theorized, agreed that language is somewhat lacking.
When I’m very in tune with my short-term desires, emotions and agency—acting according to instinct and impulse rather than ideas, plans or similar.
It’s a mindset/state of being I can go into, which has a very particular “flavour” to it, it’s light-hearted, unconcerned & in tune with what I want/like, in the moment.
I guess different people have different “modes” or “headspaces”, a kind of equilibria for how they experience the world, their own agency, and themselves. Different equilibria fit different situations. What I wanted to exemplify in the post was the potential of knowing what “modes”, “equilibrias” or “headspaces” you have access to, and try switching into non-standard ones when your default headspace doesn’t resolve the situation at hand.
If we want to shift group dynamics, I see these things as important shifts:
conflict theory → mistake theory
general complaints → specific solutions
overconfidence → humility
One way to go about this, inspired by Scott Alexander, is to ask for more concreteness: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/details-that-you-should-include-in
In general, though, I think the info content of the outrage is low. For most people, it mainly means “I read this thing online, and it resonated somehow”. I see most outrage group discussions as extensions of newsfeeds, best to be ignored.
For solid discussions, find the people capable of deep analysis, and read their work.
Do you mean “alert and active” as in:
Dealing with group-outrage situations without zoning out?
Staying up to date with politics and having an influence?
Shifting your social contexts to become less outrage-oriented?
Other?
This happened a while ago, and I’ve since migrated my social circles to distinctly non-partisan ones. I still want to help you, and would like to offer some ideas. Some of them might not fit your specific contexts. I trust you to pick the ones that seem promising.
Ideas:
Say something akin to “I get depressed talking about those people. I’ve decided to focus on people I like instead. Have you been excited about anything recently?”
Bring up the negative consequences explicitly. In a highly polarized state, not engaging in the outrage might be interpreted as a sign of betrayal. Explicitly bringing it up might be weird, but it gives you a non-traitor reason for not engaging in outrage
Look into authentic relating—a bunch of practices for deepening communication & connection. Nonviolent communication & circling are included in this category, as well as general “authentic relating”. You get some new tools for relating, and/or new friends.
Try to get people to reduce time spent on news & social media. Phone-free family gatherings?
Get people addicted to mobile games, so they spend their time on candy crush instead of culture wars
Become a hermit, build a log house under an oversized rock
For reference, most of the people I hang out with are involved in the nordic branches of the wider burning man community. They are busy actually doing things, rather than complaining about politics. YMMV, but equivalent spaces where you’re located might serve as a source of non-bitter connections.
See my response to mako yass :)
The article is party written from a past-me perspective, and I agree that it is a bit harsh. Also, there are multiple things converging to create an expectation mismatch.
I guess it’s possible to say both things, and I failed at disambiguating between the content of what was said and the tone. Most people looked at me like I was a beaten dog, offering support in the same ooh-that’s-horrible tone people vibe into during charity galas.
I get that it might be a (sub)cultural thing, but I’ve gotten a lot of appreciation for actually trying to understand the person’s situation. Guess vs ask culture maybe?
The medical opinion was that: “That’s an inappropriate question”. It works for dogs, so why not? :D
“No, we are going to split it up into millimetre sized cubes and analyse it”. (They went full hitchhiker’s on me.)
“Some people don’t lose their hair” (empirically, the answer is “yes”)
Always carry a water bottle—keeping hydrated is easier, as is avoiding sugary drinks (due to reduced thirst impulses)
I get where you’re coming from and appreciate you “rounding off” rather than branching out :)
I wrote a post on “inside-out identity”, here: https://honestliving.substack.com/p/inside-out-identity
Also, I only post some of my writing on lesswrong, so if you’re interested, I can recommend subscribing to my substack :)
in case it’s a form of self-defense, I’d like to warn against it.
Nope! It’s a conscious decision. I challenge myself and discover things I’ve been avoiding. (hiding from others → hiding from self). It’s a way to step into my power.
If you’re watching a movie with a group of people and you make a sound to break the immersion, you’ve been rude. It’s the same with social reality. The fear of being exposed/seen though is similar to the fear of being judged. Not looking too closely is good manners.
It’s complicated! I tend to break it in interesting ways, with people that enjoy creative reframings. I know the power/joy of narratives, and try to do this in ways that serve the group. Hard to put into words, but people who are usually “stuck” in social reality express that they are surprised over feeling safe enough to open up, and seem happy enough.
If I “see through” somebody , it’s only to compliment them. I try not noticing their flaws too much. This helps them to relax.
I almost never judge. I’ve practised nonviolent communication, creating “mental handles” for my judgements. When I start judging someone, I relate to my judgement as something occurring in me, rather than projecting it on the other person.
I also don’t think of people’s actions as good or bad. I rather try to understand why they are acting as they do. Some actions are untrained/unskillful.
At the same time, I’m very selective with who I hang out with :)
I hope you are allowing yourself to be human, to not always be correct, moral, and objective. That you allow yourself immersion in life, rather than a birds-eye-perspective which keeps you permanently disillusioned. Perhaps this is the anxiety-inducing self-consciousness you’re avoiding? If so, no problem!
I’m not improving my moral character because I think I should. I do it because I enjoy progress and challenge. Virtue is the sole good ;)
I feel generally happy and life feels meaningful. It feels more meaningful the more I learn about it.
Some of my writing is on the wilder side, exploring dominance dynamics, tantra and similar. I’m not at risk of being morally inhibited, and tend to value (virtue) ethics over inhibiting norms/morals.
But I assume you know how slatestarcodex got shut down despite having high ethical standards? The closer one is to public opinion, the less they can get away with.
I don’t see the danger. I’m open to my family and friends—no blackmail leverage. I keep away from culture war stuff, writing to an advanced audience. I am independently wealthy, enough to semi-retire. I earn money by facilitating philosophical inquiry, no boss to fire me.
At this point, I’d rather not live in fear. I’m as safe as it gets, and want to shift the overton window. Re: slatestarcodex—it seems to be going well for Scott.
P.S: It’s interesting to reflect with you, but this is getting a tad long for my taste, so I’ll try to stop at this point. If you are curious about anything and would like me to write about it, I’m open for suggestions.
There are a lot of things about my social behaviour that are confusing.
I engage in radical honesty, trying to express what is going on in my head as transparently as possible. I have not been in a fight/argument for 8 years.
People have said it’s pleasant to talk to me. I tend to express disagreement even if I’m mostly aligned with the person I’m talking to.
I break all kinds of rules. My go-to approach for getting to know strangers is:
ask them to join me in 1on1 conversation
open up by saying: “I have this question I like asking people to get to know them. Are you open to try it?” → “yes” → “what’s important to you?”
At the same time, people all say they feel safe with me, expressing gratitude. (with one memorable exception)
And it’s not all in my head. I keep getting invited to amazing places/communities. I have an easy time landing jobs. I bootstrapped a philosophical guidance practice over a few months, and have recurring paying happy clients.
I think there are some keys to it:
I work really hard on virtue/being a good person instead of just signalling
I’ve worked on communication A LOT, including various intersubjective communication practices (circling etc), nonviolent communication, authentic relating
I habitually take the kinds of initiatives that lead to high status in groups
I am generally successful money-wise, and have high intelligence, and am not part of a marginalized group, so I think I have a lot of leeway.
I hang out with people that are far from normative (burning man extended communities)
From a signalling point of view, I’m taking the risk of being seen as cringe, while expressing something positive in a skilled way so as to not elicit threat responses. This ends up being a strong signal since:
I take a risk (being seen as cringe), signalling that I have social capital enough to not fear the risk of judement
I do it in a calibrated way, building trust
I express positive intent, being the oppsoite of self-serving
In essence, I communicate:
I have power, and don’t give a fuck about social customs
I have strong goodwill, and will accept you without judgement
I demonstrate that it’s okay to relax and act in very direct (yet ethical) ways, establishing social spaciousness.
I haven’t analyzed this that much, since I tend to avoid explicit signalling considerations. I want to avoid the risk of anxiety-inducing self-consciousness and prestige-seeking impulses.
I hope this piece of context has given some additional insight.
I’m basically in roughly the same social equilibria as eccentrics.
I think we need to clear up two terms before we can have a coherent dialogue: “fawning” and “degenerate”.
I think I used “degenerate” in a non-standard way. I did not intend to convey “causing a deterioration of your moral character”, but rather “a hollow/misadjusted/corrupted version of”.
I use “fawning” in a technical sense, referring to a trauma response where someone “plays along” in response to stress. This is an instinct targeted at making you appear less threatening, reducing the likelihood of getting disposed of due to retaliation concerns. I did not use it in the sense of “likes someone” (fawn over someone).
Regarding Arrogance, big ego, and master morals:
I am a big fan of:
going my own way, instead of conforming out of envy-fear.
having a strong “sense of self”
knowing what I want and going for it
having standards for my own and other people’s behaviour
taking joy in others celebrating your leadership
I don’t see these things as arrogant.
Here are some arrogant things:
judging others harsher when you get insecure (pushing down to avoid getting dominated)
ignoring my own faults, because I’m not willing to appear weak
thinking I’m worthy of status and fame even if I don’t provide value
pretending that I am more confident/strong than I actually feel, because that feels safer
Arrogance has a “clinginess” to it. It has a pretence to it. It has a presumptuousness to it. Arrogance is what happens when you value “feeling powerful” (relative to others), over actually getting shit done, using power for the things it’s useful for, and serving something bigger than yourself (such as the community).
I don’t see dominance/status as inherent to a person, they are always relative to a group/situation.
They are ways of acting, supported by inherited instincts.
There’s always a bigger fish ;)
Interesting! I guess (sub-)culture plays a role here. I’m particularly surprised that hearing “I’m happy you are here” would likely lead to feelings of embarrassment.
I’d like to know more about your cultural context, and whether people in that same context would react in the same way. If you feel comfortable expanding/asking a friend (in a non-biasing way), I would be curious to hear more.
There’s likely to be nuances in the way I go about things that are hard to capture in text. Thanks for reminding me of the contextual nature of advice.
I’m into self-love and noncoercive motivational systems as my core method of relating to akrasia. It’s related to IFS, figuring out different drives, and how they conflict with each other.
When it comes to ASD, my mind is pulled toward the autistic tendency to deep dive into topics, finding special interests. If you have some of those, maybe figure out a way to combine them with what you want to achieve?
Like if you want to learn business management, and love online gaming, then maybe pick up EVE Online
I follow most of the post, but got confused by the non-cyclic graph & halting problem/computational intractability part.
Is the non-cyclic graph a way of modelling causality as state transitions?
Re: computational intractability; I understand your argument as saying:
Dualism is used as a fundamental interpretative tool, since it makes it tractable to analyze feedback loops between brain and environment.
When meditating, dualism gets broken down due to lack of feedback loops and an increase in neutral annealing, leading to nondual world models
Questions: A. Why is the awakened brain capable of performing “computationally intractable” computation (non-dual & feedback loopy)? Seems more like an aptness thing than a fundamental impossibility thing (a la halting problem) B. Does all awakening-inducing meditative practices involve cutting feedback loops? Is awakening a theravada/Samantha thing?