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.

Vaniver comments on Conceptual Specialization of Labor Enables Precision - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: Vaniver 08 June 2015 02:11AM

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

Comments (8)

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

Comment author: Vaniver 08 June 2015 08:39:55PM 0 points [-]

On the other hand I doubt that people two hundred years ago had a concept of microexpressions that only take 50ms. We only know about them because we have cameras.

I suspect people have been noticing microexpressions in others for thousands of years, but have been unable to articulate what specifically they were noticing because they're too short to reach conscious attention as anything besides an impression of the other person's emotional state. (Unless I'm misremembering Ekman, he's come across people who were able to notice them without taking any training from him beforehand.)

It's not clear to me that you can always short circuit that month by providing a different explanation.

To say it's always possible would require an impossibility proof for obstacles, so I won't attempt that. But it does seem to me that you can minimize the number of hidden inferential leaps by making as many as possible explicit, and that with a narrow enough focus, a specific curriculum for that issue could be developed, and the spiritual teacher's problem is that they don't have the time / narrow enough focus to develop a curriculum for every issue.

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 June 2015 07:09:26AM 0 points [-]

I suspect people have been noticing microexpressions in others for thousands of years, but have been unable to articulate what specifically they were noticing because they're too short to reach conscious attention as anything besides an impression of the other person's emotional state. (Unless I'm misremembering Ekman, he's come across people who were able to notice them without taking any training from him beforehand.)

Microexpressions are not the only thing that's outside of conscious attention that gives us information about the feelings of another person.

It's worthwhile to be able to distinguish different ways and label them.

But it does seem to me that you can minimize the number of hidden inferential leaps by making as many as possible explicit, and that with a narrow enough focus, a specific curriculum for that issue could be developed

Even if it's possible to build a specific curriculum that teaches a certain skill, that doesn't mean that it teaches the skill faster than a month.

Just as you can't get a sixpack in a week, changing substantial things about your mental landscape might also take time.