Time: 22:56:47
I
This is going to be an exercise in speed writing a LW post.
Not writing posts at all seems to be worse than writing poorly edited posts.
It is currently hard for me to do anything that even resembles actual speed writing: even as I type this sentence, I have a very hard to resist urge to check it for grammar mistakes and make small corrections/improvements before I've even finished typing.
But to reduce the burden of writing, I predict it is going to be highly useful to develop the ability of actually writing a post as fast as I can type, without going back.
If this proves to have acceptable results, you can expect more regular posts from me in the future.
And possibly, if I develop the habit of writing regularly, I'll finally get to describing some of the topics on which I have (what I believe are) original and sizable clusters of knowledge, which is not easily available somewhere else.
But for now, just some thoughts on a very particular aspect of modelling how human brains think about a very particular thing.
This thing is immense suffering.
Time: 23:03:18
(Still slow!)
II
You might have heard this or similar from someone, possibly more than once in your life:
"you have no idea how I feel!"
or
"you can't even imagine how I feel!"
For me, this kind of phrase has always had the ring of a challenge. I have a potent imagination, and non-negligible experience in the affairs of humans. Therefore, I am certainly able to imagine how you feel, am I not?
Not so fast.
(Note added later: as Gram_Stone mentions, these kinds of statements tend to be used in epistemically unsound arguments, and as such can be presumed to be suspicious; however here, I am more concerned with the fact of the matter of how imagination works.)
Let's back up a little bit and recount some simple observations about imagining numbers.
You might be able to imagine and hold the image of five, six, nine, or even sixteen apples in your mind.
If I tell you to imagine something more complex, like pointed arrows arranged in a circle, you might be able to imagine four, or six, or maybe even eight of them.
If your brain is constructed differently from mine, you might easily go higher with the numbers.
But at some fairly small number, your mental machinery simply no longer has the capacity to imagine more shapes.
III
However, if I tell you that "you can't even imagine 35 apples!" it is obviously not an insult or a challenge, and what is more:
"imagining 35 apples" is NOT EQUAL to "comprehending in every detail what 35 apples are"
I.e. depending on how good your knowledge of natural numbers is, that is to say, if you passed the first class of primary school, you can analyse the situation of "35 apples" in every possible way, and imagine it partially - but not all of it at the same time.
Directly imagining apples is very similar to actually experiencing apples in your life, but it has a severe limitation.
You can experience 35 apples in your life, but you can't imagine all of them at once even if you saw them 3 seconds ago.
Meta: I think I'm getting better at not stopping when I write.
Time: 23:13:00
IV
But, you ask, what is the point of writing all this obvious stuff about apples?
Well, if you move to more emotionally charged topics, like someone's emotions, it is much harder to think about the situation in a clear way.
And if you have a clear model of how your brain processes this information, you might be able to respond in a more effective way.
In particular, you might be saved from feeling guilty or inadequate about not being able to imagine someone's feelings or suffering.
It is a simple fact about your brain that it has a limited capability to imagine emotion.
And especially with suffering, the amount of suffering you are able to experience IS OF A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ORDER OF MAGNITUDE than the amount you are able to imagine, even with the best intentions and knowledge.
However, can you comprehend it?
V
From this model, it is also immediately obvious that the same thing happens when you think about your own suffering in the past.
We know generally that humans can't remember their emotions very well, and their memories don't correlate very well with reported experience-in-the-moment.
Based on my personal experience, I'll tentatively make some bolder claims.
If you have suffered a tremendous amount, and then enough time has passed to "get over it", your brain is not only unable to imagine how much you have suffered in the past:
it is also unable to comprehend the amount of suffering.
Yes, even if it's your own suffering.
And what is more, I propose that the exact mechanism of "getting over something" is more or less EQUIVALENT to losing the ability to comprehend that suffering.
The same would (I expect) hold in case of getting better after severe PTSD etc.
VI
So in this sense, a person telling you "you cannot even imagine how I feel" is right also with a less literal interpretation of their statement.
If you are a mentally healthy individual, not suffering any major traumas etc., I suggest your brain literally has a defense mechanism (that protects your precious mental health) that makes it impossible for you to not only imagine, but also fully comprehend the amounts of suffering you are being told about.
Time: 23:28:04
Publish!
I get the kinds of things that you're talking about, but we're strictly talking about the argument "If Gram had been a drug addict, then he would know what kind of plan I actually need." Even if we take as an assumption that I have been a drug addict, then it does not follow that I am better at making plans that turn addicts into nonaddicts. If anything, I probably get the epistemic advantage from not being wireheaded. This is not about saying that there are times when someone's feelings don't have instrumental or moral weight. This is about saying that sometimes, people will make you think that an argument that includes knowledge of someone's values as a proposition is itself a value judgment, making something that should not be off limits into something that is off limits. I can say, "No, I would not be better able to help you if I became a drug addict. That argument can be false even if its premises are assumed true." If I stop talking about logical validity, which is always free game, and start being someone who blows off other people's feelings for no good reason, then cut my head off.
It's perhaps worth mentioning that this was a short encounter after a long separation, so this was an urgent situation where you cannot allow an addict to argue for credibility from expertise.
Let me know if this doesn't address your concerns in any way.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m not saying that you can afford to let logically invalid arguments go unchallenged as if there was nothing wrong with them. Or that emotions ought to be free from criticism or something. Or that you haven’t earned your confidence or that her listening to you wouldn’t be massively beneficial for her. And I certainly don’t see you as someone who blows off other people’s feelings for no reason - in fact, a big reason I wanted to respond to your comment was because I got the exact opposite impression from you. I’m sorry if it ca... (read more)