Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: mathemajician 25 April 2009 08:58:50PM 27 points [-]

The following is the way I've approached the problem, and it seems to have worked for me. I've never tried to see if it would work with somebody else before, indeed I don't think I've ever explained this to anybody else before.

As I see it, these problems arise when what I think I should do, and what I feel like doing are in conflict with each other. Going with what you feel is easy, it's sort of like the automatic mode of operation. Overriding this and acting on what you think takes effort, and the stronger your feelings are wanting to do something else the harder it is.

The trick then, is to try to reconcile the two. The way most people do it is that they starting doing what they feel, and then rationalise it to the point that it's also what they think to some degree. Fortunately, you can also do it the other way as your feelings are trainable. Find what ever it is that you want to rationally do, and then keep on reminding yourself not just why you want to do this, but also try to feel it. Imagine how doing well in, say, some course of study is going to benefit and advance you in the future. How it will give you an edge against others who haven't studied the harder aspects of it, etc. Be creative, think of all sorts of positive reasons why doing this thing that you already know you should do is a great thing for you. And, most importantly, try to feel how you will benefit from this. Imagine yourself in the future having kicked butt in this course, or what ever, and imagine what that is going to feel like. Really try to feel it!

It takes time, but you slowly build up positive emotions around these things that you should be doing. At first, it just doesn't take quite as much effort to do them. Then it comes quite naturally. And after a while you will find yourself actually wanting to do it, to the extent that it would take an act of will power to not do it. Really.

This process itself also becomes a habit. When you decide to do something, you will automatically start to build up positive emotions around what ever it is that you've decided to do. During my PhD writing it built up to such a degree that I'd have these dreams some nights about how amazingly happy and proud I was going to be when it was finished. Motivating myself to work on it wasn't a problem.

Comment author: CrimeThinker 02 June 2017 11:48:05PM 2 points [-]

If you look into the abyss and see turtles all the way down, perhaps it's all just the same turtle and you're not thinking with portals, turtlebro.

Comment author: Toni_Heinonen 02 September 2007 10:48:10PM 5 points [-]

I'm sorry, but why can't there simply be an infinite amount of explanations, why can't the regress just go on infinitely? (You say "must")

Comment author: CrimeThinker 02 June 2017 11:26:38PM 0 points [-]

Agreed but the question is still how big of an infinity? An infinity of one? An infinity of five or eight or none?

Comment author: PeterCoin 16 August 2015 11:55:21PM 0 points [-]

The happiness of stupidity is not closed to me. By the time I've made 1 rational decision (by whatever metric one wants to use) I'll have made 100 irrational ones. Stupidity and irrationality is built into the very way I operate.

I am primarily composed stupid and irrational beliefs and I am continually creating more.

You don't choose to be irrational, that's the default position.

Rationality is a limited precious resource that you use to diagnose and fix problems within the irrational milieu of systems and subsystems that make up your mind.

Second order rationality would then seem to be more about avoiding wasting precious resources on things I will receive no gain and instead focus on using rationality to fix things that actually need fixing. If I spend 1 hour of rational thinking doing philosophy I'll feel a lot better than if I spend 1 hour questioning the intentions of my SO.

Comment author: CrimeThinker 25 April 2017 05:46:50AM 0 points [-]

Generally agreed, doublethink is actually very easy and natural and is actually also probably the default state for human beings. In my experience, doublethink isn't so complicated as others seem to think, believing in two sides of one scale, but rather understanding a sort of multidimensional scale. Just as the teacher in Donnie Darko was made fun of for the idea of everything falling onto a love/fear scale, there's probably a good chance that scale is actually right and not wrong at all, but is only one axis of a plethora of emotional dimensions. This is part of why it is better to be MoreRight than LessWrong, though both are pretty neat. :)

Comment author: CrimeThinker 20 April 2017 10:33:22PM 0 points [-]

Thanks. :)

Comment author: Raemon 05 May 2013 04:29:39PM 13 points [-]

I am torn between finding the naming schema slightly distasteful and so clever that I have to give it a pass.

Comment author: CrimeThinker 18 April 2017 09:49:03PM 0 points [-]

I thought it would be a great name if it was about seeking truth through spirituality as reversed to seeking truth through rationality. Or as opposed to anything specifically about politics in this case I guess.

Comment author: Raw_Power 14 December 2010 02:38:36PM 0 points [-]

Argh, how I envy you guys. Me, I used to believe All Myths Are True at first, and then I selectively and methodically disbelieved those that I (very gradually) discovered to be inconsistent. I guess I've always had the tendency to completely immerse myself in stories. Even now, I still take stories and fiction way more seriously than I should...

Comment author: CrimeThinker 03 April 2017 10:18:12PM 0 points [-]

I had basically the same origin, just born/raised rationalist I guess and mostly agnostically christian enough to have done sunday schools and nightly prayers. Things like magic and such never really made sense, as much as I liked to imagine them, and used to hallucinate a different world frequently in which I had such abilities. Obviously I was just crazy but rational enough to at least accept that others didn't see the things I did and thus it just made more sense that they weren't real, that imagination and reasoning were clearly two different things (not mutually exclusive, you can combine them as this place seems fond of trying to do in some way or another). If anything I've felt too restricted by leaning to far toward rationality for most of my life and feel as if I'm only just beginning to understand that Maybe All Myths Are Actually True Somewhere. Regardless, that's more philosophy than science and until we find such a somewhere or such a true myth (which we frequently do in smaller scale concepts) doesn't seem too worth worrying about, but that's my natural rationalist bias that I'm struggling to "overcome."