= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
sketerpot comments on Less Wrong NYC: Case Study of a Successful Rationalist Chapter - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (166)
Even as a rationalist, this line is a bit of a turnoff. If both spouses like this kind of phrasing, that's great, but that's an issue of shared culture, not inherent superiority of rationality. I preferred option 2.
Edit: more accurately, I think real rationalism promotes good relationships, but the Less Wrong lexicon is not inherently helpful.
Try this approximately-equivalent rephrasing: "I'm sorry about how I reacted; even though I know in my head that it's extremely unlikely you meant to hurt my feelings, I'm still working on getting my gut reaction to match up with that."
My version is still a bit stiff-sounding, and it attributes anatomically implausible acts to your digestive organs, but it keeps the message intact without sounding too far removed from normal diction.
I regularly say things like this to the people closest to me. The phrasing is only awkward the first time, when I have to do a bit of backstory and explanation. Thereafter, a short phrase suffices to indicate that this sort of phenomenon is occuring.
I consider it a good intermediate rationality tactic. I'm not yet to the point where noticing that a feeling (anger, sadness) is irrational lets me eliminate it. But explicitly noting what is going on to my converational partner helps keep both of us from letting the situation worsen.
Yeah, that's a little better.