tl;dr: Sometimes it seems like in order to accomplish something, you need to hold a particular belief. However, the effect of your beliefs on what you accomplish can be screened off from what you actually do.
Also, thank you to Benquo for reading over a rough draft of this and providing very helpful comments.
Foma: Beliefs that Cause Themselves to be True
Live by the foma [harmless untruths] that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy ~ Cat's Cradle
When I was younger, I had formed an idea that there were some beliefs that, when believed, caused themselves to be true. I even had a name picked out for them – foma. These are just a few examples of how I came to think that.
“This is awkward” very often makes things awkward.
Consider walking through a room with a group of people that you don't know very well all talking and laughing. One or two look at you, and you just sort of stare back. “Well,” you think, “this is awkward”.
You stare blankly before letting out an uneasy laugh, and you go on your way. You can feel people watching you walk out the door.
If you just walk through the room without thinking about it at all, its not even emotionally salient enough for you to wonder how it feels.
When I got over my fear of public speaking, it was basically because of a fluke. I decided to do a presentation on the mistakes of Odysseus' crew in character as Odysseus. People then assumed that my shaky arms, legs, and voice were the result of me doing a good portrayal of a shaken Odysseus, rather than my being nervous.
After that, I thought public speaking wasn't so hard as long as I feel comfortable doing it. Taking a few steps to mitigate my physical signs of nervousness (like walking around, or standing behind a podium), I quickly became pretty comfortable doing it.
“I'm not a good public speaker” worsened my public speaking skills, and “I can do this” strengthened them. Areas like self-confidence seem to possibly be foamy.
However on closer reflection, that model is incomplete.
Anticipations Influence Action
Clearly, there are beliefs that don't cause themselves to be true. Foma that work in some instances don't work in others. If I thought I that I was such a great speaker that I could go in front of a group, stare at the ground, and then stutter into some note cards while mumbling offensive things to the audience and have them like it, I'd be wrong. If I even just thought I was going to do a good presentation and then didn't do anything, I'd be wrong.
A belief alone isn't actually enough to do anything. There needs to be a causal reason for your holding a belief to influence the world. Your beliefs influence what you do, and what you do influences the rest of the world.
Some religious people argue that their belief in God allows them to be a good person. As we know, you can be a good person without believing in God. Controlling for what you do, and with tight enough definitions on "what you do", your beliefs are effectively screened off from the rest of the world unless you're being brain scanned or something.
A causal diagram can be drawn as such:
Alice believes in X → Alice's anticipations based on X make her choose to do Y → Y has effect Z
Consider Alice believes that she is funny → Alice's expectations of delivering a funny joke leads her to deliver a joke well → Alice's good joke delivery makes Bob think that she's funny
In this diagram, if Alice just does Y her belief in X is screened off from effect Z.
Taking apart Foma
People's brains don't normally think particularly rigorously. When language combines two different things into one or frames something as an intrinsic property of an object ("Alice thinks Alice is funny" and "Bob thinks Alice is funny" often becomes "Alice is funny"), it can seem like foma occur. On top of that, we often act to fulfill or preserve our self image (remember Bruce?).
It's easy for Alice to think that her belief that she's funny is causing her to be funny. If she were more precise, she could get away with:
Alice believes that actions Y have effect Z → Alice does Y → Y has effect Z
With specifics,
Alice knows that people find a joke funny when its set up right and has good timing → Alice sets up the joke correctly and has good timing → Bob finds the joke funny
Every step of that chain is entirely true.
When Foma are Practical
Part of the reason that I took so long to take apart foma was probably that, in the areas that I experienced foma, I wasn't consciously processing my actions. The awkward things that I did while I thought I was being awkward were never part of an intentional strategy, they just sort of happened. Since changing my beliefs seemed to do something, it felt like they had a direct causal effect on the world.
With the unpacking of foma in mind however, it's easier to discover which behaviors are actually influencing the world. When you feel like you're experiencing foma, you have an opportunity to learn something about what you do or don't do successfully.
For instance, when I feel awkward I'll start speaking when I feel that someone made a pause in conversation, but then stop and let someone else to speak, then continually almost interrupt them.
When I feel like I'm funny, I'll extend pauses after particularly emphasized parts of a joke, and slightly vary my volume and speed of talking based on relevance to the punchline.
In some instances, it probably is easier to believe in foma than to act on the relevant beliefs. As of right now, my unconscious mind knows much more about how to be confident than my conscious mind does, and on top of that it has much better processing power with which to act on its knowledge, and keep track of other people's responses. It runs more automatically, and continues to deliver while I'm consciously distracted. When I need to act confident, I find it to be much more time efficient and effective to just "psych myself up" than to review everything I know about body language and whatnot.
It's true that you probably won't learn social skills solely by reading a text in an empty room and then leave it, having fully assimilated the described social skills.
Beyond that -- and not to single you out, of course -- your comments present what I have found to be a widespread, counterproductive misconception. What I have found, instead, is that:
1) Believing that learning a skill you possess requires extensive experience, is the quickest way to "compartmentalize" and weaken your own understanding of the skill, and dull your ability to pass it on to others. If you start from the premise that it's all an inarticulable black block, you will completely miss out on the parts that can be verbally communicated. I have seen this all the time in instructors who lament that they can't just tell me how to do something, and at the end I find that "er, you could have just told me all along that ...".
2) Spending time around others who exhibit a high level of X will do very little for your skill at X. Everything that was a mystery will remain so, because you won't see the "model" that led the expert to act one way rather than another, and people woefully overestimate their ability to "infer" the "algorithm" that the expert is using. (This is very much related to the underdetermination problem.) Time and again, I've apprenticed with others and learned precisely nothing, while I've trained others up to my level in a fraction of the time I required to learn it, or of the time expected for the person to learn the skill.
3) Much experiential learning -- not all, of course -- can be obviated by a relatively small amount of verbal instruction, because it singles out the non-obvious, hard-to-experientially-infer part of the problemspace. Again, with the instructors I've been involved with (and contrasted with my role as an instructor), I could make no progress learning alongside them until I could verbalize the skill -- which typically reveals holes in the instructor's own understanding!
This has all led me to strongly suspect that people who fall back on an inarticulability defense, typically lack understanding in crucial ways themselves.
Recently, I wrote an introduction to asymmetric cryptography that was lauded as far more helpful than anything else available on the matter, even despite covering less material. My trick? Actually have explicit understanding of the matter, not just the "learn by watching" kind.
Oddly, I tend to get the exact same "that was so helpful!" response, despite generally having a knowledge base that is almost entirely "learn by watching" and "well, this works but I have no clue why". It seems to help that I'm very good at making this clear.
Obviously, this only works if I'm teaching someone who can get by on that level of understanding; teaching people to understand something better than I do is tricky ;)