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

Comment author: cousin_it 17 January 2018 01:19:15PM *  2 points [-]

It seems like the trichotomy is complete: wanting/liking/approving is valuing something before/while/after it happens.

Comment author: pjeby 22 January 2018 09:46:37PM 1 point [-]

I think that using the word "valuing" adds back in confusion that this trichotomy is trying to remove. Wanting is the axis of urgency to act or not act, liking is the axis of feeling enjoyment or suffering, and approving is the axis of feeling morally elevated or disgusted. These are independent axes that can exist simultaneously regardless of time, and which are only made more vague by lumping them together as "valuing".

(Notably, one's experience can be placed simultaneously on all three axes: it is not necessary for these experiences to be separated in time. You can approve or disapprove beforehand and during, not just after. You can want while doing, as well as beforehand.)

Comment author: MattG2 08 May 2017 03:07:27AM 0 points [-]

The link no longer works... what is the book?

Comment author: pjeby 01 June 2017 03:53:15PM 1 point [-]

Huh. Looks like the author decided to raise the price and sell it exclusively on their own site. Kind of a pity, since it means dramatically fewer people will even know it exists. Anyway, it's Embrace The Unlovable, by Amyra Mah.

Comment author: ksvanhorn 16 January 2017 03:43:00PM 0 points [-]

I'm reading Gendlin's book Focusing and struggling with it -- it's hard for me to understand why you and Anna think so highly of this book. It's hard to get past all the mystic woo about knowledge "in the body"; Gendlin seems to think that anything not in the conscious mind is somehow stored/processed out there in the muscles and bones. Even taking that as metaphorical -- which Gendlin clearly does not -- I find his description of the process very unclear.

Comment author: pjeby 23 March 2017 03:02:14PM *  3 points [-]

Gendlin seems to think that anything not in the conscious mind is somehow stored/processed out there in the muscles and bones

That's an uncharitable reading of a metaphorical version of the Somatic Marker Hypothesis. Which in turn is just a statement of something fairly obvious: there are physiological indicators of mental and emotional function. That's not the same thing as saying that these things are actually stored in the body, just that one can use physiological state as clues to find out what's going on in your head, or to identify that "something is bothering me", and then try to puzzle out what that is.

An example: suppose I have something I want to say in an article or post. You could describe this "wanting to say something" as my felt sense of what it is I want to say. It is preverbal, because I haven't said it yet. It won't be words until I write it down or say it in my head.

Words, however, aren't always precise, and one's first attempt at stating a thing -- even in one's head -- are often "not quite right". On hearing or reading something back, i get the felt sense that what I've said is not quite right, and that it needs something else. I then attempt new phrasings, until I get the -- wait for it -- felt sense that this is correct.

Gendlin's term "felt sense" is a way to describe this knowing-without-knowing aspect of consciousness. That we can know something nonverbally, that requires teasing out, trial and error that reflects back and forth between the verbal and the nonverbal in order to fully comprehend and express.

So, the essential idea of Gendlin's focusing is that if a person in psychotherapy is not doing the above process -- that is, attempting to express felt, but as yet unformed and disorganized concepts and feelings -- they will not achieve change or even true insight, because it is not the act of self-expression but the act of seaching for the meanings to be expressed that brings about such change. If they are simply verbalizing without ever looking for the words, then they are wasting their time having a social chat, rather than actually reflecting on their experience.

Meanwhile, those bits of felt sense we're not even trying to explore, represent untapped opportunity for improving our quality of life.

[Edited to add: I'm not 100% in agreement with the Somatic Marker Hypothesis, personally: I think the idea of somatic markers being fed back to the brain as a feedback mechanism is one possible way of doing things, but I doubt that all reinforcement involving emotions work that way. Evolution kludges lots of things, but it doesn't necessarily kludge them consistently. :) That being said, somatic markers are an awesome tool for conscious reflection and feedback, whether they are an input to the brain's core decisionmaking process, or "merely" an output of it.]

Comment author: pjeby 16 April 2016 01:36:49AM 1 point [-]

Bob has replaced a concrete goal (live in France) with a vague abstract one (be cool?). Near motivation trumps far, every time.

Sally assumed that "procrastination" is one thing, rather than a wide variety of things we lump under one name.

(Even though an identity element is implied by the presentation, it's not clear this is directly related to either person's mistake.)

To correct his mistake, Bob needs to consider whether he actually has any concrete reason for learning any other languages: what actual concrete result is desired? Sally's mistake would be resolved by getting clearer on the nature of her specific procrastination and then choosing a more suitable approach for dealing with it.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 02 April 2016 04:51:10PM 1 point [-]

I was fooled by Gmail's "Drop The Mic" prank

Comment author: pjeby 02 April 2016 09:22:15PM 0 points [-]

I only heard about it after it was turned off, and spent my time since wondering if the news stories about the feature were the prank. (That is, that it didn't actually happen and Google merely announced they were turning off a feature that never existed... a kind of meta-prank as it were.)

Comment author: pjeby 22 March 2016 07:51:19PM 1 point [-]

Your map is of Melbourne, Florida, rather than Melbourne, Australia. As a result, the site sent out notices to people in Florida, but (presumably) not people in Australia. I'm not sure what you need to do to correct that.

Comment author: ScottL 16 December 2015 11:14:08AM *  1 point [-]

It looks to me like it's possible to resist grief, at least to some extent. I think people do it all the time. And I think it's an error to do so.

It is only an error if it continues on too long. Avoidance in most circumstances is a natural and innate part of the process of dealing with grief.

Avoidance is sometimes an adaptive strategy in coping with adversity and sometimes maladaptive. In the case of bereavement, experiential avoidance usually plays a role in facilitating the healing process. The emotional pain associated with new information that a loved one has died is so severe that people need time interspersed with periods of respite in order to be able to fully acknowledge the unwanted reality. Respite can be achieved using cognitive avoidance, and sometimes by also avoiding contact with triggers of emotion. When avoidance is used adaptively, it facilitates processing of the painful information as well as restoration of the capacity for a satisfying ongoing life. As processing and restoration are achieved, the need for avoidance diminishes and the strategy must be relinquished. If it is not, or if avoidance is over-used in the wake of bereavement, the strategy can backfire. Processing difficult information is impeded rather than facilitated and acute grief is prolonged. (Shear, p. 357)


I could instead turn my mind to the pain, and look at it in exquisite detail.

This sounds potentially dangerous to me. You could easily retraumatize yourself or deepen your grief by doing this. It is probably best to try to do this when with someone else and also not too early in the grief process. This does not mean that you should never do this, however, as this is something that has to happen eventually.

The feelings from grief have an undulating or wave like motion. There will be times where you can face your feeling and times when you cannot. This is totally fine. It does, however, become important as more time progresses for you to make sense of the loss and find benefit in it, which fortunately often becomes easier as time progresses:

Those who were able to make sense of their loss typically did so by seeing the death as predictable or as a natural condition of life or by suggesting that the death was comprehensible within the context of their religious or spiritual beliefs. On the other hand, those who were able to find benefit in the experience tended to report that they had learned something important from it, about themselves (e.g., that they had the strength to cope with the adversity), about others (e.g., the value of family and relationships), or about the meaning of life (e.g., learned what is important in life). (Davis, C.G., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Larson, J. p.570)


I think the first three so-called "stages of grief"

I don’t think these stages are currently accepted anymore as they are seen to be too rigid. See here for some recent developments on the understanding of grief and bereavement.

It required a choice, every moment, to keep my focus on what hurt rather than on how much it hurt or how unfair things were or any other story that decreased the pain I felt in that moment. And it was tiring to make that decision continuously.

I think the power from this actually comes from the perspective that you are taking on the loss rather than the simple fact that you are thinking about it. For example, I think there was a big benefit from not thinking about how unfair it was.

In summary, I think your post is describing something that should happen in the later stages of the grief process. It might also not be suited for people with avoidant attachment styles. There is no doubt that they are some ways to do it better than others, for example this looks pretty good. My opinion, though, is that if you were trying to find out how to handle grief well, then it would be more important to look at things like what your strategies are: to handle it, to seek help from others for it, to compartmentalise it, to challenge the unhelpful thinking it will induce etc. See here for more.

P.S. can you please add a summary break somewhere in your post.

Comment author: pjeby 28 December 2015 04:01:26AM 1 point [-]

I don’t think these stages are currently accepted anymore as they are seen to be too rigid.

"Stages" was probably never the right word in the first place: they're more like strategies we use to avoid acknowledging unpleasant truths, and therefore have no required order or progression between them.

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 December 2015 11:43:21PM -1 points [-]

Sorry, it's Hamming and not Hemming. (I often say the term and seldom write it)

It's basically getting a few people together to speak through a problem that one person has.

Comment author: pjeby 11 December 2015 05:18:38AM 1 point [-]

Searching for "Hamming circle" yields only information about hamming codes. Do you have a link?

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 December 2015 12:01:57PM -1 points [-]

they might still be more effective than nothing at all.

They might. They are likely less effective than nothing at all. Your advice about "Do not stand out" has the possibility of prevent people from starting blogs and take a public stance for their own values.

The are not good guidelines.

Let's say a person in the EA/rationality space get's publically attacked. What should be their first response?

That's a trick question. Don't do anything public while being in the emotion triggered by the attack.

Seek out to other people in the community that have media experience and contact them privately. Do goal-factoring yourself about what's important in the situation. If you have a specific response in mind check with other people. In addition to EA/rationality people ask outsiders for their opinion.

Respond publically only after you checked with other people and are in a state to think clearly about the issue. Do not think that you can handle the situation optimally yourself without outside input by reading a list with ten rules or even reading the full Art of War.

Use Goal-factoring and Hemming circle's. Basic rationality techniques.

Comment author: pjeby 10 December 2015 06:00:21PM 0 points [-]

Use Goal-factoring and Hemming circle's. Basic rationality techniques.

I've at least heard of goal-factoring. What is/are "Hemming circle's"? Google only turns up articles about sewing.

Comment author: Lumifer 30 October 2015 05:07:59PM *  1 point [-]

most of my water consumption is forced, in the sense that I'm drinking without any sensation of thirst. That's the problem: I have little sensation of thirst

I am keeping in mind the Typical Body Fallacy, but this seems entirely normal to me, at least for a city person with a desk job. I don't have and don't expect to have a sensation of thirst during a typical day. I wouldn't say that I'm forcing myself to drink, I just sip and drink intermittently throughout the day basically because I recognize that otherwise I will get dehydrated (thought still no actual thirst) by the end of the day.

because my body doesn't seem to store the water for later demand

Given how you were talking about pains, it seems to be a noticeable issue for you -- so maybe set up some recurring timers to, I don't know, sip 50ml every half an hour or something?

Comment author: pjeby 30 October 2015 05:41:30PM *  0 points [-]

Given how you were talking about pains, it seems to be a noticeable issue for you

Yes -- it happens a few times a week, depending on circumstances.

Your advice would totally make sense if the baseline issue were that I'm not consuming enough water. But on a baseline day I consume between 1 and 1.5 gallons of water alone, not counting any water in the food I eat, or any other beverages such as almond milk. (I don't consume sodas, fruit juice, coffee, tea, alcohol, or really anything else.)

The problem is that sometimes, that 1-1.5 gallons isn't enough, and there are occasionally days where it's been not enough for a few days in a row, such that I end up running "a few quarts low". (I actually use my scale as another clue: if I've lost a pound or two from one day to the next, and my fat % is higher, then I know I'm dehydrating. But an hour or so difference in time spent sleeping can do the same thing to my weight, so it's not a very precise measurement.)

I don't know, sip 50ml every half an hour or something?

What makes you think I'm not doing that now? As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, my rate of water need is not constant. If I have a couple of days in a row where I underestimate how much I need to raise my intake to compensate for losses like having more conversations or physical exertion than usual (or the air conditioner running more to maintain the temperature inside!), then I will fall behind and experience dehydration symptoms. But if I try to consume more water as a matter of course, then that also disrupts my digestion, makes me feel cold, keeps me running to the bathroom, and so forth.

So, if you don't have some method for actually changing my body's regulation of water, I'm not interested. AFAICT I'm already doing everything that is doable with respect to changing my behavior around water consumption, given the lack of any reliable means for determining my precise water need, in a situation where both under- and over-consumption create health problems.

I'm going to tap out of this discussion now, as my original post was not a request for advice; it was an expression of curiosity about someone saying they experienced headache relief from both placebos and painkillers, making me wonder if it was water-related (since I have some experience of that).

View more: Next