Martin Gardner reported a case of No. 3 on people becoming mad after mistreating their minds wih "Hinton Cubes". That are simple mechanical tools for developing a various parts of 4-dim. visual imagination (actually, when reading on regular solids etc., I can imagine such things without toys tools...). The unlucky practitioneers of a cult Hinton made out of that got mad because the trained ways of modified perception started working automatically, they could not stop that any more. Now imagine, someone would have confronted them with suitable analogues of impossible figures etc....
An other case of No. 3 was reported by a jewish scholar on the Talmud this way: It's 63 volumes are not only 'passionate disputes': By demanding the reader to follow them, they provide a training in the type of thinking used by those medieval, hermetic scholars. ... Then a clever designed 'mental trick lock', an 'intellectual vortex' comes. The emotional and motivational aspect of all the training with repetitions, variations, rythms, starts working like a maelstrom along the previous levels of learning. The first 'trick lock' the student meets is the barrier of his own intellectual strength, a barrier artificially made thicker than necessary. Only then comes the real 'trick lock' for the student who thinks he has the trouble behind him: The now since long dragged-in mental concepts and thinking-ways are set into conflict. A Talmudist described it: "... it puts the mind at war with itself; the more powerful the mind, the more destructive the conflict."
Martin Gardner reported a case of No. 3 on people becoming mad after mistreating their minds with "Hinton Cubes".
Indeed, Gardner prints such a letter in the midst of introducing those very cubes to a larger audience. I presume that the letter is the work of a joker or crank, as it appears to be.
The unlucky practitioneers of a cult Hinton made out of that got mad because the trained ways of modified perception started working automatically, they could not stop that any more.
Citation needed.
Are there any occasions when it's a good idea to avoid exposing yourself to a certain piece of information? As rationalists, we probably do a lot less of this than the average person (because we're curious about reality and we don't mind having our preconceptions destroyed by new knowledge) but is all self-exposure to information safe?
Possible reasons, from least to most controversial.
1. Exposing yourself to information that's distracting; the act of reading the information is not the current best use of your time (TvTropes.)
2. Exposing yourself to information that puts you or others in direct danger because you know too much (illegally reading classified gov't secrets; personally investigating a crime)
3. Exposing yourself to information that's likely to cause dangerous psychological damage (graphic depiction of rape if you're a rape survivor; writing that romanticizes suicide if you're depressive; pro-anorexia blogs)
4. Exposing yourself to information that violates someone's privacy or rights (reading a secret diary; going through someone's mail)
5. Exposing yourself to information that might alter your character in a way you don't currently want (the argument that repeatedly seeing violence in video or photographic form makes us less compassionate)
6. Exposing yourself to "escapist" media that make the real world seem less appealing by comparison, and thus make you less happy (porn; some science fiction and fantasy; romance; lifestyles of the rich and famous. A variant: plot spoilers, which can also ruin future enjoyment.)
7. Exposing yourself to persuasive arguments that might make you do things you currently consider morally wrong (Mein Kampf, serial killers' manifestoes)
8. Exposing yourself to content that might persuade you to do things you don't currently want to do (advertising, watching the Food Network if you're dieting/fasting; the sirens' song, if you're Odysseus)
9. Exposing yourself to effective, emotionally manipulative arguments for things you're currently confident are false (possibly religious apologetics)
10. Exposing yourself to "cynical" true information that lowers your utility/motivation/happiness in everyday life (public choice theory, if you're a civil servant; accounts of unsuccessful and dissatisfied grad students/law students, if you're a student)
11. Exposing yourself to content that's "disgusting" or "degrading" in your view (Two Girls One Cup; Tucker Max; gangsta rap)
I think 1-4 are no-brainers, and 5-11 are possibly good ideas but I'm less confident. I think 7, 10, and 11 can have negative consequences. I think 9 is rarely if ever necessary.
Do you do any of these things? Which do you think are good reasons to self-censor? Any other ones?
I don't think we can really discuss censorship until we know what we think about self-censorship. I'd want to know what kinds of information people don't want to be exposed to, before I started restricting other people's access to information. Arguments for censorship often reduce to arguments for self-censorship (claims that there are some kinds of content that people regret being exposed to.) There are semi-voluntary methods for enabling self-censorship, that stop short of actual censorship. For instance: trigger warnings, rot13, site-blocking software, MPAA ratings. Whether or not to censor something (where by "censor" I just mean "restrict access to"; private websites "censor" when they delete or hide information) depends both on how much harm it's likely to cause if read, and how able/likely people are to voluntarily avoid it.