in the social popularity game, criticism is a negative.
in the truth-seeking game, criticism is a positive.
you can get an idea of which game people are playing by their reactions to criticism.
if someone wants public praise and private criticism, they may be trying to play both games. but the games contradict, and the contradiction will destroy them.
it's human nature to think that convenience is greater than truth
> it's human nature to think that convenience is greater than truth
what a vague, unargued comment.
i guess it was more convenient to write that than a serious truth-seeking comment!? ☹️
> i guess it was more convenient to write that than a serious truth-seeking comment!? ☹️
maybe Anon actually believes the crap he said?
seems like he's implying that morality hurts.
like, doing what's right is coercive.
he may believe it, but he didn't argue and explain it
your (or anyone's) current flaws are not human nature
humans are not doomed to be the same
> like, doing what's right is coercive.
so they think that *changing one's mind* hurts.
> so they think that *changing one's mind* hurts.
correction: they *actually* do get hurt. but that's because they have certain bad ideas that try to resist change.
the point is that people don't have to have ideas that try to resist change. if you already have them, it's possible to change.
how do you change ideas that resist change?
what ideas change ideas that resist change?
> how do you change ideas that resist change?
being *persistent* and *thorough* helps.
don't just refute the bad idea with an argument, still like it or do it, and think you're stuck.
refute it with 20 arguments. and make each one really good, serious, detailed, accurate, etc. find 20 things wrong with the idea you want to change and write them all down in full edited polished detail.
and expose your arguments to criticism. can anyone find anything at all wrong with them?
can you think of a single counter-argument that isn't *fully* addressed? even if it's not great.
doing stuff like this makes a difference. people routinely think they know the answer without actually looking at the issue enough. they don't change because they still have arguments for both sides they haven't sorted out. they still have things they like about the idea they are trying to drop, which they haven't refuted.
i'm not saying that doing all this will 100% solve all problems. but it's a great thing to try. it will solve some problems and partly solve some more. and you'll learn a lot while doing it that will be useful in lots of other ways (e.g. you'll get better at analyzing ideas, judging criticisms, writing well, etc).
people think it's hard to change some idea and get stuck and **give up** way too easily. they didn't do everything they could do.
if you did all this and you were still stuck, there would *still* be plenty of good things to try next. you could brainstorm stuff to try, and make a list of 20 options, and polish those and expose those to critical discussion, and then try some of those. if you couldn't think of 20 options, something's wrong, which you could investigate.
i think this is really really really good advice. reminding yourself that you should just "do X" or "stop doing Y" doesn't address the underlying ideas.
like curi says here, you really need to write stuff down. A LOT. expose much of it to external crit, but expose all of it to lots and lots of self-crit - which happens as you write and think. if you don't write it out in full detail, you are sheltering parts from crit. no wonder changes don't stick!
i think having vague ideas really is the enemy here.
mb even read the stuff you write every day. add more ideas to it that you think of with each new day.
look carefully for instances where you fail or were close to failing and GO WRITE ABOUT IT.
pay close attention to your ideas throughout the day. what's going thru your head? are any of those ideas related to whatever issue you are trying to change?
ideas which are thought of (even if not acted on) MATTER. Make them explicit and come up with *replacements* if they are mistaken. Rather than suppress them and just focus on not enacting them, you need to explicitly address them.
So say you want to change your ideas about eating and you notice yourself thinking something like "i'm bored and wanna get a snack." Rather than just telling yourself "don't eat unless hungry"....use that opportunity to write in full-detail as many criticisms as you can think of about eating when bored. If that idea keeps popping in your head like that, you still have parts of you that think it's a good idea. And that part isn't going to be persuaded with "don't eat unless hungry".
same thing with other issues too. like are you paying close enuf attention to try to catch every idea related to second-handedness? or not thinking all probs are solvable? or having a low standard and accepting a compromise vs a cp? or assuming a conclusion in advance? etc.
also, i wouldn't focus too much on other areas either. really zone in for a whole week or so on whatever your particular issue is and write and think as much as you can about it. i guess just don't spread yourself too thin.
also, one reason ideas resist change is because they are **true**
don't assume the conclusion – assume in advance that the idea is false. you need to look at it as open-ended solution-seeking, not just trying to make the one predetermined outcome (drop that idea) happen. you don't know the answer in advance. if you already knew the answer, you wouldn't have a problem.
why do you need 20 arguments to criticize an idea?
why do you need criticism from others?
others are at service of their own memes
under pressure to spread them
they can be dangerous
what one needs is to develop one's own ability
criticism is a selfish rational process
it can only be done by the self
others can't do it for you
the only criticism i can think of eating is that i get fat
some people don't stop eating
but they try to solve the problem of getting fat by purging
but that's extremely unpleasant
and not everyone can do it
and it becomes a problem in itself
it becomes a compulsion
i don't eat because i'm bored
i like eating
maybe like you like philosophy
or maybe not
why dismiss non-hunger eating as something ppl do only when bored?
often they do it when something interesting is going on.
like watching a movie.
> also, one reason ideas resist change is because they are **true**
how do true ideas resist criticism differently than false ideas?
how can one tell the difference?
> why do you need 20 arguments to criticize an idea?
you don't **need* 20, but it really helps you think over the issues better to think of a bunch instead of just 1 or 2. you'll learn more. it's practical advice.
> why do you need criticism from others?
you have blind spots, weaknesses, stuff you're bad at, stuff you're irrational about, stuff you're confused about.
other people have differences. even a person who is much worse than you overall won't share **all** of your weaknesses. other people will have some strengths, skills, specialities, variety of perspective, etc, that can provide value to you. they can catch some things you missed.
> how do true ideas resist criticism differently than false ideas?
you can get some hints when people with an idea are evading instead of explaining.
> how can one tell the difference?
guesses and criticism. there isn't some simple criteria here, or else it'd be a magic way to know what's true. you have to do the same normal stuff we always talk about: critical discussion, objectivity, reason, etc, etc
use logic, use science, write out your arguments and review them a week later, be open minded, etc, etc
>> why do you need criticism from others?
> you have blind spots, weaknesses, stuff you're bad at, stuff you're irrational about, stuff you're confused about.
what about lulie's idea that real interests are really personal things? from: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/13714
isn't her idea against criticism?
i think she's wrong about some of that. i guess maybe you do too.