You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

David_Gerard comments on "Epiphany addiction" - Less Wrong Discussion

52 Post author: cousin_it 03 August 2012 05:52PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (92)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pjeby 04 August 2012 04:29:48AM 9 points [-]

Too much of the self-help and popular psychological literature are written like stories, which, while make them more readable and more likely to be read, tends to encourage readers to keep on reading through it all. If you are reading for change, you need to read it like a textbook, for the information, rather than entertainment.

This is why most of the successful self-help gurus pack their books full of stories and insights, but leave the actual training for in-person workshops, or at least for higher-bandwidth or interactive media. Most of the challenges people will have in applying almost anything can't be listed in a book, without creating an unreadable (or at least unsellable) book.

While this is also the most financially beneficial way to do it, I have personally observed over and over that there are certain classes of mental mistake that you simply CANNOT reliably correct in non-interactive media, because the person making the mistake simply can't tell they're making the mistake unless you point out an example of it in their own behavior or thinking. Otherwise, the connection between the pattern of mistake and the instance of it remains opaque to them. People are much better at pattern-matching cognitive errors in other people than they are in themselves.

See, for example, lukeprog's comment, wherein he wrote:

A few chapters in, each book said "The most important thing is that you put down this book right now and go practice the thing I just told you to do." But I just kept reading, because I was learning so much, and having all those epiphanies felt like getting stronger.

I can't think of any combination of symbols placed on paper that would have bypassed Luke's filters here... and a few years back, I spent one hell of a lot longer time than five minutes trying with all my might to think of one!

Essentially, this means that a properly consequentialist self-help author who wishes to do the most good for the most people is pretty much required to write their book in such a way that it functions as a huge commercial to get people into some sort of higher-bandwidth communication channel where the real learning can take place. (Much the way that HP:MOR can be considered a huge commercial for CFAR, despite the strong informational content.)

Ideally, there will also be plenty enough practical information that more independent thinkers will be able to apply on their own; but it's not at all realistic to assume that an "information only" textbook presentation will result in any actual follow-through from most people.

Comment author: David_Gerard 04 August 2012 04:43:46PM 1 point [-]

I have personally observed over and over that there are certain classes of mental mistake that you simply CANNOT reliably correct in non-interactive media, because the person making the mistake simply can't tell they're making the mistake unless you point out an example of it in their own behavior or thinking.

I know I don't really get a given cognitive bias unless I can think of an example of me doing it and feel stupid at the realisation. (I have previously generalised from myself on this point, but I'll try to refrain from that.)