= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ialdabaoth comments on Luck II: Expecting White Swans - 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 (86)
I.e.: be Extroverted, not Introverted.
I.e.: Be Stable, not Neurotic.
I.e.: Be Open to Experience, not Closed.
I.e.: Be Conscientious, not Haphazard.
I.e.: Be Positive, not Depressive.
... reading through most of this, it seems like the trick is to not be Neurotic, not be Depressive, not be Introverted, and to have high Openness and Conscientiousness. By my understanding, these aren't really traits you can just "decide" to improve, and people who do not naturally possess these traits tend to experience a pretty hefty willpower toll forcing their behavior.
Wiseman described unlucky people as conscientious, but in a tunnel-visioned way-- they were so focused on not making mistakes that they didn't notice opportunities.
I don't think you can just decide to improve those traits, but gradual improvement of habits is possible.
I also think you're showing a depressive bias-- one that I share-- reflexively reframing a possibilitiy in a way that makes it too hard to pursue, and then giving up on it. Like most biases, this is related to something useful (some apparently possibilities are actually impossible or not worth pursuing), but the unexamined assumption that the first seen obstacle is impassable is a problem.
It's interesting that you associate that with depression. I know someone who does this -- typically accompanied by a startling degree of resistance to solutions-to-obstacle -- and in the past I've mentally attributed it to motivated stopping. Sounds like I might be wrong. Do you know any literature on the subject?
Learned helplessness is relevant. I don't think the behaviour is specific enough to identify depressed people.
Consider that many people are not looking for advice when they complain. Complaining can be a script for small talk, a request for validation of them giving up something or a request for sympathy etc.
Good point, but not relevant in this case. The person in question has a known history of depression, I had just never connected A with B until Nancy mentioned it.
[Edit: Usage as depression-identifier not relevant. Learned helplessness might be right.]
Indeed, and my own internal explorations have indicated that "learned helplessness" is probably exactly what's going on. Watching myself and my cognition patterns when my depression kick in have shown me that the root problem is an early overgeneralization of "Strategy S(1) didn't work, S(2) didn't work, S(3) didn't work, S(4) didn't work, S(5) didn't work..." into "Strategy S(s) won't work for all s". The actual 'depression' is then just a perfectly reasonable resource-conserving strategy, given the (probably faulty) assumption that no identifiable strategy will offer a positive payoff.
In general, though, the problem with the "no one can help you but you" self-help rhetoric is that it pretty much throws under the bus everyone who has been trained to be their own worst enemy. If you want highly rational depressives to stop being depressive, I think the best strategy is NOT to tell them to go out there and take more risks - it's to put then in a controlled environment where they can be rewarded for exploring and taken care of when they run out of willpower, and then slowly train them to update out of their learned helplessness, build successful willpower-replenishing strategies, and restructure their social model to positive-sum instead of negative-sum.
I'm betting you'd have a better chance doing this with depressive people whose family/friends have a lot of resources, than you would doing this with depressive people who are surrounded by poverty and social malaise, but then resources are a direct measure of how much a capitalist society cares about a given member, so maybe that's as it should be.
This makes me think of the first two steps from Alcoholics Anonymous's twelve step program:
One of the few things that AA comes close to getting 'right' is providing people with a framework to bond together as a community and help each other. Of course, there isn't much evidence that AA works particularly well, but when there aren't very many "real" choices available, people take what they can get.
Sorry, no literature, just introspection, which means I should have been more careful about generalizing.
Tentatively, if a person makes a fast jump to "that's impossible" for things they don't want to do, but they are resourceful about doing things they do want to do, that's not depression. Maybe. If the only thing an alcoholic is resourceful about is getting alcohol, it might be reasonable to say they aren't depressed, or maybe depression/not depression isn't the right distinction.
I do think that inertia and misery are both attributed to depression, but they're somewhat independent.
nod that seems reasonable, but here's a second generalized counterexample:
When I'm depressed, I tend to behave as if I don't want to do anything. Then, when I'm not depressed, I tend to be VERY resourceful about doing things, which makes it look like those are the things I most want to do. It is then very easy to declare that I'm resourceful about doing the things I want, and just lazy about doing the things I don't (which is a particularly unhelpful criticism that I've dealt with all my life (but stating that it's unhelpful just leads to people pointing out that if enough people say something, it's probably true (but pointing out the inherent cognitive biases involved in that just leads to people pointing out that I'm being defensive and making excuses (but pointing out that that's a fully general counterargument just leads to people deciding to not talk to me at all anymore (but I need people for my physical and emotional health so I try to avoid that and just accept that I'm lazy instead of depressed (which makes the depression worse (which makes people decide to not talk to me at all anymore (which leads to another layer of learned helplessness))))))).
This is because it often works people who are not depressed, and people can't know with certainty when your behaviour is due to depression. How confident are you about knowing it yourself?
Depression works like a fully general counterargument too. It seems your frustration has more in common with theirs than expected.
Well, yes. And I usually solve that by ceding the point; I'm more willing to acknowledge that I'm just a worthless parasite than they are to acknowledge that I need help, so eventually we can all just agree and move on.
I'm pretty sure you understand those are not the only two options.
The funny thing about akrasia, from the inside, is that you often have plenty of "options" that you can't actually execute on.
By options I mean explanations for what's happening, not actions, unless you want to define thoughts as actions. Vast majority of people suggest solutions because they want to help, not because they want an excuse to call you a parasite. Implying they're evil assholes doesn't help your situation.
Even an introverted person can use some strategies to maintain contacts with more people. Actually, an introverted person should use such strategies, because they can't expect it will happen automatically.
For example, an introverted person could do the following: Compile the list of people they want to keep contact with. (Maybe multiple lists with multiple levels of contact.) Make notes in calendar when these people have birthdays or other significant days. Contact them on such days, using some scripts, such as "Congratulations! How are you?" etc. For each such person keep a text document describing the facts you know; then you can insert personal remarks and questions into your document. ("Have you finished your piano lessons?" "How many cats do you have now?") You should also note the history of your relationship and your mutual friends. Make a decision about how often do you want to meet them personally, and after the given time contact them and offer a meeting or a Skype session. Keep their photo to remember their face. Etc.
Doing all of this, you will probably still remain naturally introverted. But you will get some of the advantages the extraverts get. The costs of maintaining the network may be balanced by the benefits the network will bring to you.
Facebook has made this all but redundant, keeping track of your friend's birthdays for you. The result? Facebook birthday greetings have become all but meaningless now, since everyone knows no one has remembered and they've just followed the facebook notifications.
Depending on your relationship with someone, you could use facebook to find out when their birthday is, and wish them happy birthday through some other medium, like text message.
Just because people know you use X to influence them, it does not mean X has no influence on them. People are not good at properly discounting evidence. Also, some people may not realize you have a system.
If some kind of birthday message becomes too frequent, you can modify your message to stand out of the crowd. For example, send it one day earlier, or one day later. Or use e-mail instead of Facebook; and insert a funny picture.
Previously, no one remembered them, they just followed their diary entries.
The key point of a birthday greeting is that it signals that you spent some effort on the relationship. That is the reason even expensive presents don't neccessarily work - if they are easy to get and you can afford them: They don't signal that you care.
This description is probably true, but also so wrong it hurts.
That is the sad part of rationality: All too often it allows you to see the pattern of social interaction more than to feel it. If you communicate what you see you may hurt your kind or devalue your actions ("because you did it only for the purpose"). If you see the purpose you have to make extra detours to really care. You have to feel one level up. Nothing is ever easy.
I don't think it's that sad really. Whatever positive feelings I would gain by being less rational would probably be evened out or even overwhelmed by the negative ones.
No not that sad. Not sadder than being less rational of course. But not purely happy either.
OTOH, if you don't communicate what you see but do use it to optimize your interactions, knowing that such patterns exist can be very useful. (Communicating your knowledge of such patterns can have significant drawbacks as a way to obtain status, such as that which you listed above.)
That is indeed true and kind of a problem for me. I was raised to be truthful by positive example and value truth highly. I formed a moral ideal of mutual truthfulness early. Towards people I trust I am very open and don't hide/lie about my feelings or opinions. Toward strangers I don't lie (I might for higher purposes) but may hide information for some personal advantage (but not if it only if it's to the others advantage). Mutual truth and openness were a core part of my marriage. Some lack of sensitivity has often led to hurt due to this combination despite trying to be nice. Being truthful and open is part of my identity and reputation. I can't just change it. And I don't think that it is neccessary because such a reputation and consistency has their own advantages (via long-term signalling).
But they <I>made</I> those diary entries. And looked into the diary regularly to make sure they remembered.
And on Facebook they friend those people, and look into Facebook regularly. I don't think the dynamics of birthday-remembering have changed. Computers already made it easier before Facebook, and diaries before computers.
I should have been clearer, sorry. Facebook is less inconvenient on two non-trivial counts: there are other reasons to open it (whereas a birthday diary will only have information related to birthdays and similar stuff), and it records the birthdays without any effort on your part.
Most of the greetings I've seen are so generic I wonder if they have apps to automate them too.
But Facebook all but completely eliminated the trivial inconvenience. I'm under the impression that using diaries for that purpose was at least an order of magnitude rarer than using Facebook is now (though I'm generalizing from one example).
"and people who do not naturally possess these traits tend to experience a pretty hefty willpower toll forcing their behavior"
For a while, anyway. I've become more extroverted and it's gradually become more natural feeling to me. That said, I doubt I'll ever quite be the social butterfly some people manage to be.
True! Instead, these are skills that you can train. "Just decide to be extroverted" will work about as well as "just decide to be better at chess." The thing is that, to turn "decide to be better at chess" into "actually become a better chess player," you have to play a bunch of games and study openings and probably other stuff. (I can't actually play chess very well.)
Over the past couple of years, I have massively shifted my personality towards four of the five traits you discuss (extroversion, openness, conscientiousness, and positivity). This isn't because I intellectually understood that it would be nice to change. It's because I deliberately practice this stuff all the time.
True at the start. Becomes less true as you actually gain the traits, and eventually becomes negligible. ("Just forcing" the traits doesn't seem likely to work any better than just playing a squillion chess games. You'll get better results if you focus on specific subskills, ask experts for help, etc etc.)
Most of these traits can be situation dependent and temporary. People easily interpret situational factors as permanent character traits or the other way around.
Try spending time with people who have interesting things to say. Don't interpret boredom as introversion.
Could be just about whether you're on a winning or a losing streak.
People can offer you all kinds of silly experiences like skydiving, then complain if you don't comply. Be careful not to interpret your preferences as openness to experience
Try performing work that actually interests you.
Optimize your situation to be less depressive.
This is my general take, too.
Taking just extroversion for example, I know people (we all do) whose emotional stability seems to require almost constant networking and meeting new people. I've tried to fake this ability, and learn it...because it is a great way (sometimes the only way) to be successful in certain areas of business. Most people would never guess it (so I guess I'm doing a decent job of trying to be extroverted), but I'm strongly introverted, and it takes great effort for me to become the Networking Version of myself for a couple hours at a business event or happy hour.
Over time, I believe this effort to be extroverted takes a significant toll on my overall mood and motivation levels. In order to be something you aren't, you are basically engaging in something you are really bad at and don't enjoy -- which tends to wear on my self-image. And in the case of extroversion, you are meeting contacts and forming friendships under some false-ish pretenses, since you are only pretending to be that way. In some cases, people will expect you to be the Extroverted Version indefinitely, even though you were just wearing that hat and trying to adopt those habits in the way the post suggests.
Though you can (and I have) become a pretty passable faux-extrovert, I think it can be (and has been for me) a net bad choice. I shoulda just been introverted, neurotic and depressive all along, and focused on the comparitive advantages those traits have to offer.
I'm in a similar boat, but I found ways to make faux-extroversion work for me.
What I basically found was that if I engage with individuals at group events as though we were alone, then all I have to "fake" is the being-in-public body language... basically, I have to have individual conversations as though I were on stage. The emotional impact is similar to that of a private conversation, and having superficially public conversations that have the internal structure of private ones seems to really convey extroversion, since I'm talking about stuff people don't tend to talk about in public.
But it takes a certain amount of self-monitoring and steering to remain in that state; once I tire out I can't maintain it anymore.
From your description, it seems like you're engaging in something you're good at and don't enjoy. (I mention this because I expect that realizing you've become skilled at this might cause you to enjoy it more. If you try to have the skill instead of trying to fake the skill, you might find that you've already done most of the work.)
I can see the comparative advantages of being an introvert, but what are they for the latter two?
Perhaps they aid in creative pursuits, build the capacity for empathy, very close attention to detail, less prone to certain biases.
I don't think they are optimal, but it may be better to embrace what traits you have than try and possess optimal trait you do not.
I think I'll have to agree they can be good for your genes and your pursuits, but are they good for you?
In my experience, it is best for me to be me. It takes a big toll on me to try and be something I'm not. There are advantages, but I sense it is a net loss.
(A thing that peeves me about the five-factor model is that (I read that) the labels try to sound neutral but (IMO) fail at that, Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion and Agreeableness all sounding positive and Neuroticism sounding negative -- and when Stability replaces Neuroticism it's even worse. OK, with Openness this might be self-serving bias on my part, myself being around 80th percentile Openness -- but I'm around or slightly below median on the other ones, so this can't be the only reason.)
Well, that's kind of a natural consequence of selection pressures. Trying to make labels sound neutral when one end of a spectrum is preferred to the other inevitably leads to the Euphemism Treadmill - it's the same thing with "intelligence" vs. "idiocy" / "retardation" / "being special".
The fact is, in our culture, high Openness has clear social advantages over Traditionalism; high Extroversion has clear social advantages over Introversion; Conscientiousness has clear social advantages over Impulsiveness; and Stability has clear social advantages over Neuroticism. Change the culture, and the local optima might change, which will change the connotation of the terms - for example, Competitiveness might scan better in some places than Agreeableness.
Just like smart people are just "better" than dumb people, extroverts are just "better" than introverts, and stable people are just "better" than neurotics - at least in this environment.
What would be a better term than "neuroticism"? I suggest an optimism/caution spectrum.
The world would be a better place if there'd been some Neuroticism at Enron.
But would the Enron execs have been better? Because selection doesn't care about what's best for the world.