slizer88.wordpress.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
192.0.78.12
Public Scan
Submitted URL: http://slizer88.wordpress.com/
Effective URL: https://slizer88.wordpress.com/
Submission: On September 13 via api from US — Scanned from CA
Effective URL: https://slizer88.wordpress.com/
Submission: On September 13 via api from US — Scanned from CA
Form analysis 3 forms found in the DOM
POST https://subscribe.wordpress.com
<form method="post" action="https://subscribe.wordpress.com" accept-charset="utf-8" style="display: none;">
<div class="actnbr-follow-count">Join 57 other subscribers</div>
<div>
<input type="email" name="email" placeholder="Enter your email address" class="actnbr-email-field" aria-label="Enter your email address">
</div>
<input type="hidden" name="action" value="subscribe">
<input type="hidden" name="blog_id" value="66704335">
<input type="hidden" name="source" value="https://slizer88.wordpress.com/">
<input type="hidden" name="sub-type" value="actionbar-follow">
<input type="hidden" id="_wpnonce" name="_wpnonce" value="a7681655e6">
<div class="actnbr-button-wrap">
<button type="submit" value="Sign me up"> Sign me up </button>
</div>
</form><form id="jp-carousel-comment-form">
<label for="jp-carousel-comment-form-comment-field" class="screen-reader-text">Write a Comment...</label>
<textarea name="comment" class="jp-carousel-comment-form-field jp-carousel-comment-form-textarea" id="jp-carousel-comment-form-comment-field" placeholder="Write a Comment..."></textarea>
<div id="jp-carousel-comment-form-submit-and-info-wrapper">
<div id="jp-carousel-comment-form-commenting-as">
<fieldset>
<label for="jp-carousel-comment-form-email-field">Email (Required)</label>
<input type="text" name="email" class="jp-carousel-comment-form-field jp-carousel-comment-form-text-field" id="jp-carousel-comment-form-email-field">
</fieldset>
<fieldset>
<label for="jp-carousel-comment-form-author-field">Name (Required)</label>
<input type="text" name="author" class="jp-carousel-comment-form-field jp-carousel-comment-form-text-field" id="jp-carousel-comment-form-author-field">
</fieldset>
<fieldset>
<label for="jp-carousel-comment-form-url-field">Website</label>
<input type="text" name="url" class="jp-carousel-comment-form-field jp-carousel-comment-form-text-field" id="jp-carousel-comment-form-url-field">
</fieldset>
</div>
<input type="submit" name="submit" class="jp-carousel-comment-form-button" id="jp-carousel-comment-form-button-submit" value="Post Comment">
</div>
</form>POST
<form method="post">
<input type="submit" value="Close and accept" class="accept"> Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. <br> To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: <a href="https://automattic.com/cookies/" rel="nofollow">
Cookie Policy </a>
</form>Text Content
SLIZER88
SLIZER NEWS AND RANTS AND STUFF. AND ESSAYS.
* Main
* Profile
* Essay Library
* Other People- Delphinius
UNDERSTANDING
Posted by slizer88 on August 18, 2024
Posted in: philosophy. Tagged: communication, education, friends, friendship,
knowing, learning, society, sociology, understanding. Leave a comment
Is Understanding Necessary?
If someone asks you to call them by a name that isn’t what you thought it was,
that is a simple request. If you’re told my name is Robert, but I ask you to
call me Bob, you don’t need to know why I have that preference. You can call me
Bob every time you refer to me, and you can do that reliably.
But what if you need to write down my full legal name on an important document?
Does my passport say “Robert”, or was my given name just “Bob”? The latter is
unlikely, but it’s common enough that we shouldn’t risk submitting an important
document with the wrong name.
Understanding why I asked to be called Bob is to know if I prefer it because
it’s my real name, or if it’s a nickname. If I chose a nickname because I didn’t
like my real name, then you can use this understanding to know that you should
use “Robert” in official documents. If my birth name was Bob, using “Robert”
would be wrong. So there is a clear benefit to understanding why things are the
way they are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before discussing this topic further, we must define it because different people
have different understandings of it.
What isn’t Understanding?
* Understanding is not binary. We often think that we either understand
something or we don’t understand, but this misses out on nuance.
* Understanding is not a scale. We might think that we can have a shallow
understanding of things that grows into a deeper understanding.
One could describe understanding as a spectrum, but this word is often
misunderstood. Two people can understand something while knowing very different
things about it. I can understand chocolate as a connoisseur that is an expert
in every chocolate sold, while you might understand the science of making
chocolate but not know much about brands of chocolate. Neither of us can say
that we understand chocolate better than the other, we just understand different
aspects of chocolate. It’s like having a checklist, where we both have checked
off half of the 100 boxes to understand chocolate, but you have the first 50
boxes checked and I have the second 50 boxes checked. Neither is better or
worse, they’re just different, so it wouldn’t be fair to compare our
understandings.
One could argue that if you only know one thing about chocolate, you have a
shallow understanding. This will be true most of the time, but what if you know
something very insightful about it that no one else knows? Maybe you know
nothing about chocolates you can buy, and you know nothing about how to make it,
but you found a secret to what gives chocolate its different tastes. You
wouldn’t be able to say you have a great understanding of chocolate, but you
probably have a better understanding than someone who only knows that one brand
has nice chocolate.
Understanding does not require a deep knowledge of something. Understanding
doesn’t mean that you know a lot of details about something. In fact, it’s
possible to know a lot of details about something, and still not understand it.
A computer can analyse every pattern and detail of a painting, but still not
understand the artistic meaning of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is Understanding?
Understanding is when even if you don’t know much about something, you know the
important parts.
But which parts are important? Importance can be difficult to define, as it
depends on both the nature of what you’re trying to understand, and your
relation to it.
These examples show the difference between one’s relation to a subject:
* If I want to buy the best chocolate, I might want to know if you have a good
understanding of chocolate. You could know what brands of chocolate are good
or bad, but that would fail if I have different brands. To actually have a
good understanding, you would need to know what makes -any- chocolate good.
That way, you could teach me how to figure out which of my local brands of
chocolate are good.
* If I want to make the best chocolate, I might want to know if you have a good
understanding of chocolate. You might know what methods to make chocolate are
good and bad, but that would fail if I wanted to make a new type of
chocolate. To actually have a good understanding, you would need to why
certain production methods lead to certain results. If you know how chocolate
reacts to acids, you can figure out how a new lemon chocolate might work. If
you only know about orange chocolate but not lemon, you might try to make
them the same way, which might fail because lemons are too sour. You would
need to know how chocolate reacts to things in general.
The nature of something might be a better way to determine how to understand it.
If a book was written as satire, to understand the book would mean to understand
the nature of the satire. The satire will be about a topic, and will have a goal
of criticising that topic in a certain way. We can memorise every word of Animal
Farm, but if we do not know that it is satire of Joseph Stalin’s rise to power,
we have missed the entire point of the book, so we cannot say that we really
understand it.
What is Necessary in Order to Understand?
To know the important part of something is to know enough to work with that
thing. But what is enough to work with something? What is necessary to work with
something?
If you have hurt me by accidentally saying something I don’t like, I will have a
good understanding of what you did wrong, but you won’t even know that I feel
hurt until I express it in some way. If I know exactly what you did wrong, I
might say “don’t do that”. To me, “that” is defined very clearly in my mind.
However to you, “that” is ambiguous, since I haven’t specified what part of what
you said was harmful. We have a different idea of what is required to avoid the
problem, so we don’t agree on what is necessary to understand. If you explained
to me that only I know what hurt me, we might agree that it is necessary for me
to explain that. Without that, you cannot understand how to avoid harming me.
What if I don’t explain that? You will know that the exact sentence you used is
wrong, so you will know not to repeat that sentence. But that won’t be enough,
because changing a few words from that sentence will probably still be just as
harmful to me. This is because if you only change a few words for synonyms, the
sentence will retain the same meaning. so it will hurt you just as much. But if
I was hurt by a specific word, changing that word might make the sentence less
harmful. If it was the message that hurt me, it doesn’t matter what words you
use, it will always hurt me. So you need to know if it’s the message, a word,
the tone, or something else. If I don’t tell you -why- the sentence hurt you,
you won’t know how to avoid hurting me again.
What if I’m used to everyone being harmed by the same things as me? I will then
think that you should already know that you harmed me. My standard for what you
need to understand something will not match your standard. This means that there
is a bias to what people need to understand something. If I’m used to the word
“silly” being offensive, then I will think that saying “you called me silly”
will be enough for you to understand that you hurt me. This means that we need
to remove the bias for people to understand each other. We must express not just
the direct reason for what we’re talking about, but also the explanation for
-why- it matters.
Demanding that someone understand your explanation is like asking someone to
download an iPhone app for their Android phone. If everyone I know uses iPhones,
then I won’t understand why you can’t install the app. You’re not able to
download the app, while I assume that you can and simply refuse to. When I offer
you information that I would need to understand something, it might not be the
information that you need. You would be incapable of understanding it, while I
assume that you can and simply refuse to.
Subjective Uses
Another issue depends on what sort of work we want to do with something. If I
only need to learn enough math to do accounting, I won’t have any need to
understand why the mathematical procedures work the way they do. But can I say
that I understand the math? To a degree I can argue this, but I cannot say I
understand it as well as a mathematician. If I only know the procedure but not
how it works, I only know the method without understanding it. This is why
understanding is like a spectrum or a checklist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Understand?
Since we need understanding something to work with it, not understanding means
being unable to work with it. If I want you to stop saying something that
offends me, you need to know why it offends me. If you know that, you can
accurately predict what will offend me, and avoid them. If you don’t understand,
then you can’t predict what will offend me and what won’t. If you tried to guess
what offends me, you would have to take what you said and try to figure out a
pattern for what things are similar enough to it. You would be guessing what is
similar enough and what isn’t, which can only really be accurately done by
understanding why. “Why” gives you the pattern.
Let’s say you tell me that you were annoyed when we had pizza for lunch.
* If you just tell me that you were annoyed by “everything”, I might think that
you don’t like pizza, or you didn’t like the restaurant. I would avoid taking
you back there altogether.
* If the actual reason why you’re annoyed is because you have sensory issues, I
can predict that we shouldn’t have gone to the restaurant when it was so
sunny outside, we shouldn’t have gone to the restaurant when it was full of
people speaking loudly, and we should have ordered food that didn’t have that
texture. You might like the restaurant in different circumstances.
Let’s say that you like giving me gifts, but I tell you I don’t like receiving
gifts.
* If you accept what I say without trying to understand why, you will never buy
me a gift. You will be sad that you’re not able to give me gifts.
* If you try to understand why, I might tell you that it’s because I feel bad
when people spend money on me. This means that you will be able to make a
gift for me, so I will be happy in receiving a gift without you wasting
money, and you will be happy because you were able to give me a gift.
So it is very clear that understanding things changes what we do, how we act,
and what decisions we make. A lack of understanding means making bad decisions,
and proper understanding means making good decisions. This means that we should
not be surprised when someone does something wrong when we fail to explain
things to them.
When Do We Not Need to Understand?
Sometimes we do not need to understand. Simple tasks like paying taxes do not
require us to know why we pay them, since paying them prevents a penalty.
Knowing why we pay taxes is important in other situations, like figuring out the
our politics and who to vote for.
Small tasks generally do not need to be understood, but if we do not, then we
have to trust other people about the need to do these tasks. While many tasks
are required, many are not. If we continue to perform tasks because we have not
tried to understand them, they can become ineffective traditions.
For example, it used to be said that videogame cartridges needed to have air
blown into them to make them work. Let’s say that someone continued to do that
with CD-ROMs, DVDs, BluRays, and USB drives because they just assumed that that
was what was done. They never tried to understand why blowing into them helped,
so they never had any reason to suspect that it would not work on other data
storage devices. This lack of understand would lead them to continue this
activity as a pointless tradition that they could stop.
Companies will pay people to understand their business to find small tasks which
no one has tried to understand, so they can eliminate these pointless tasks.
This makes their business more efficient, saving them money on needless costs.
Blackbox Thinking
A “black box” is a device whose internal workings are prohibited from being
known to the user, so they cannot understand it. They are only allowed to use
the device, so it might have buttons that perform a function, but the user is
not allowed to open the device to understand what it does or how it works. A
black box generator could provide electrical power to your house, but you
wouldn’t know if it was a gasoline engine or a nuclear reactor. It could be
radioactive, and no one would tell you. Since you have no reason to suspect it’s
nuclear, you would only find out once you get radiation poisoning, when it’s too
late.
“Black box thinking” is a term I use to describe when someone thinks in such a
way as to make decisions without understanding why. Their decision-making is a
black box where they give it a situation, and it gives them a solution. They do
not ask why, do not ask questions, they do not wonder if it’s a bad solution.
This type of thinking is more common called “heuristics”, which are intuitive,
subconscious processes in the brain that are an alternative to deliberate,
rational thinking. A heuristic offers a fast, effortless decision, but it is
unreliable. A deliberate decision takes longer and requires more mental effort,
but can be more reliable. Most people rely on heuristics, and often have trouble
with rational thinking. Because of the effort required, they tend to neglect
their rational thinking skills, causing them to be even worse at deliberate
thinking. This means that they rely on heuristics for most everything they do,
which also means that most everything they do is unreliable. Heuristics are
better at doing simple tasks, which are the ones that often do not require
deliberate thinking. Heuristics tend to be worse the more complex a task is,
which is visible in the sciences and math, particularly because they are often
counterintuitive.
Dual Processing Theory
Type 1 Processing
People who think with heuristics (type 1 processing [1]) tend to see no point in
trying to understand things, because they do not gain a benefit from it. They
have a set of heuristics that act as approaches to deal with most situations, so
they go into new situations with pre-made choices. Giving them more information
might change which heuristic they choose to employ, but they will naturally tend
to stick those heuristics they already developed. If they come across a
situation where they do not have a heuristic that matches, they have trouble
figuring out what to do, because their choices are useless.
Type 2 Processing
People who rely more on deliberate thinking (type 2 processing) are the
opposite; they think with reasoning, and reasoning requires understanding to
work. This is because reasoning takes information you have, and makes
conclusions based on that information. Without information, you have nothing to
work with to make conclusions. So their decision-making is improved with better
understanding, and can even be incapable of making decisions without
understanding. This can be because they are scared to make a decision without
understanding it, but it can also be because they have no means by which to make
the decision. A type 1 person has a heuristic to make the decision, while a type
2 person doesn’t, they must rely on reasoning instead. The type 2 person thus
has the tools to make the decision, but like a hammer and chisel without any
marble, the tools are useless without something to use the tools on. Logic is
just a tool that is used to process information, so without information, logic
can’t do anything.
Comparison
If you give a type 1 person the ingredients to make a cake, they might mix and
bake them without any particular care for how to do so, because it is
instinctive to them. If you give a type 2 person the same things, they will ask
what to do with them. If they’re not given that information, they will use their
reasoning and consider what can be done with the ingredients, and plan out
several options for what can be done. They might come up with ten different ways
to mix the ingredients and how to bake them, while the type 1 person will be
confused as to why the type 2 person is doing any of this. In fact, the type 1
person might have told you that there was only one way to mix them. The type 2
person will likely decide that they do not have enough information to make the
cake properly, but will make an educated guess if they have to. If they have
enough ingredients, they might test the process to see what kind of cake it
produces, to make sure they can produce a good cake. The type 1 person often
will not consider such things, and often will treat the cake’s results as “good
enough” no matter what they are. A type 1 person is also less likely to improve
their method, because that requires investigating the reason why they failed,
which is best done with deliberate thinking. They’re not incapable of changing,
but often require a push to reevaluate. A type 1 person relies on past
experiences to be similar enough to current decisions. A type 2 person takes
longer, but can figure out how to deal with new situations that they have no
experience with.
Is it better to be one type or the other? Heuristics are best used in survival
situations where time is limited. These situations are rare, and heuristics are
unreliable because they’re not thorough, so type 1 processing is rarely useful,
and often harmful. Reasoning helps us process our emotions, prevent irrational
behaviour, make better decisions, and provides a check for our intuition. So we
have a need to use both types, but it is best to use them simultaneously. A
synthesis of reason and intuition can offer fast and reliable decision-making,
which means that understanding always helps. Even when understanding seems
pointless, it can reveal a problem that no one noticed, saving time, money, or
pain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Understanding is a vital topic across possibly all aspects of life. It can
drastically change the outcomes of communication, and therefore relationships.
It can change the outcome of any decision we make, so it can determine what job
we get, who we marry, if we marry, if we go bankrupt, or it can be the
difference between life and death. If I don’t understand how electricity works,
and no one tells me that a hairdryer is dangerous in the shower, that’s life and
death.
Ultimately, understanding things is never harmful, can drastically improve
results, and ensure that you get what you want.
Not understanding things allows for quick decisions, but can be harmful,
especially when time is not a significant factor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples:
Example 1:
You can learn how to do long division by memorising the method to do it. If you
only learned the process without understanding it, you will fail when you try to
do long division on fractions, negative numbers, square roots, etc. . Someone
who understands -why- long division works as it does will be able to adapt what
they know to work on something new.
Example 2:
If I’m learning how to renovate houses, I might be shown a wall and taught how
to tear it down. After I’ve torn down 100 walls, I might think I’m ready to do
it on my own. For most of the houses I go to, I see similar walls and tear them
down. Then one day I tear down a wall, and the building collapses. This happened
because I tore down a load-bearing wall that was the house needed to stay up.
This was my fault because I acted without understanding what it was doing. I
blindly repeated the same process even when I should have changed the process. I
cannot change the process because I do not understand it, I’m just repeating it
like a recipe.
Example 3:
If you’re told that there is a method in mathematics called “derigation”, you
can say that you “know of” it, but you do not yet “know” it or “understand” it.
If someone explains how to perform the method of derigation, then you could
repeat those exact steps. That means you can say that you know how to derigate,
but you don’t really know what derigation is. It is only when you have had an
explanation of -what- the concept of derigation is that you can connect with it.
If a teacher tells you that derigation is a mixture of derivation and
integration, they might expect you to understand. If you do not know what
derivation and integration are, then this explanation probably won’t connect
with you, so you won’t understand. If someone else gives you an explanation that
uses only words you know, that might be enough for you to understand. But simply
using words that you know does not necessarily mean that you will understand
what those words mean when put together, especially if it is a difficult
concept.
For example, I could tell you that derigation is when you “decrease and then
increase something”. These are simple, accessible words that are in a properly
formed sentence, but they do not explain it in a way that everyone will
understand.
* Does it refer to something like a balloon, that increases in size and then
decreases in size to end up at the same size it was originally?
* Or does it mean that something like a bank account has increased in quantity
by a large amount when you get paid, and then decreased a small amount when
you pay taxes?
* Does “derigation” only apply to numbers, or can we use it to describe
physical objects?
* How does derigation increase and decrease something?
* Why is it used? What is the benefit of it?
To use derigation, we do not need to know these things. We can memorise the
process and apply it without understanding it. If we do that, we will then come
across many situations where the method we were taught no longer applies. We
might not need to know all of these things, but we do need to know some of them.
Example 4:
If we memorise the steps to bake a cake, we might think we understand baking.
But this is no different to memorising what keys to press to play a song on the
piano. We cannot say that we play the piano if we only memorised some keys to
press. We cannot say we understand baking when we don’t know how to accommodate
alterations, or bake other cakes. To understand how to bake, we have to
understand at least the basics of the physical and chemical properties involved.
What if a vanilla cake requires mixing with water, but chocolate cake would be
ruined by adding water to the chocolate? What if one ingredient burns at the
usual temperature we bake at? What happens when we try to bake other cakes, or
play other songs? What happens when the oven is fan-assisted, but this wasn’t
part of our recipe? What happens if the recipe calls for “flour” but we have
“wheat flour”, is that acceptable and how will it change the cake? If we only
know what to do, but we don’t know -why- we do them, then we cannot adapt to new
situations. We might be able to guess, but then we are likely to get it wrong.
We do not understand.
Example 5:
There were islands in the Pacific Ocean that were used as military bases by the
United States during World War 2. The personnel often received cargo containers
full of supplies, which they shared with the native island populations. When the
military left, they disassembled their bases and the cargo stopped coming. Many
of the native peoples knew that the cargo they were receiving only came because
of the military base, but they did not understand why the military base caused
cargo to arrive. Because they wanted the cargo to keep coming, they recreated
the conditions that they saw associated with what they wanted to happen. They
constructed planes, buildings, and radio towers out of the wood and other
materials they had, expected for the cargo shipments to return, resulting in a
cargo cult. They saw correlation between a base existing, and cargo coming in.
They did not understand, so they thought this correlation was causation. They
thought that if a base exists, it will cause cargo to come. They didn’t
understand -why- the base brought cargo, so their efforts didn’t work.
Example 6:
In some cases we might assume that people’s actions truly reflect who they are,
but this is a dangerous assumption that is rarely true. It’s not enough to judge
their actions, not even in context. We might think it’s safe to assume that a
firefighter than risks their life to save us is a loving, caring, and selfless
person. This can be the case, but it can also be that the firefighter started
the fire because their true goal was to feel like a hero, or to gain fame. True
understanding comes from looking beyond appearances. To know that someone is a
firefighter is merely to know a fact about them, it is not knowing them. To know
-why- they are a firefighter is to gain some understanding of them.
Example 7:
Let’s say that I work at a charity, and my friend wanted something to do with
their free time, so I offered to have them work at the charity. If they decline,
I might think they are not a kind, generous, thoughtful, or giving person,
because they had the opportunity to help and chose not to. This would be judging
them based on their actions, an external factor. In this case, I have not tried
to understand my friend, resulting in prejudice. If I asked them -why- they
declined, they might tell me that the charity’s schedule means they would have
to see people suffering for eight hours a day, and they cannot handle the pain
from empathising with them for that much time without breaks. This should change
how I view them. Rather than my friend not caring about others, it is clear that
they care quite a lot. It also shows that they have trouble handling pain, to an
extent. This is a far more sympathetic view of my friend, and far more accurate.
You can only truly know someone if you know why they do things.
Example 8:
Let’s say that I tell you about something I did that I know was a harmful
mistake I could have easily avoided. You agree by saying that it was indeed a
stupid mistake, and then you tell me how I could have avoided it, then you tell
me a story about how you made a similar mistake, then you tell me it’s a common
mistake so there’s nothing to be ashamed of. Then I tell you to “never say that
again”, so you would know that something you said upset me, but you wouldn’t
know which of the things you said upset me. I then say that the harmful thing is
obvious, and that you know what it was, even though you asked what it was. After
you convince me, I tell you that you called me stupid. You tell me that you
didn’t call me stupid, you only called what I did stupid. I tell you that I
consider calling my actions stupid means that I am stupid, so you agree not to
repeat this mistake.
Months later you call yourself stupid, and I tell you that I already told you
not to do that. You’re confused because I asked you to “never say that again”,
and then I explained that I don’t like being called stupid. This time, you
didn’t call me stupid, you called yourself stupid, so you don’t understand how
this is related to the previous event. I explain to you that I don’t like it
when anyone is called stupid, and I insist that this is the same problem as last
time, and that you broke your promise not to repeat it, so you don’t care about
me. You apologise and accept that you won’t call anyone stupid when you’re
talking to me.
Months later you tell me about a grammar rule that is confusing and doesn’t make
sense, so you call it stupid. I get incredibly hurt and tell you that you’ve
broken your promise twice, and that you should know better because I’ve told you
twice already. You’re confused because the first time, I said I didn’t like
being called stupid. The second time, I said I don’t like people being called
stupid. But this time, you called an abstract concept stupid. No person was
called stupid. So now it seems that what I had always meant was that I don’t
like people using the word stupid.
I only told you not to repeat what you did, without explaining why what you did
was a bad thing. Because you didn’t understand the reason why those specific
things you said hurt me, you weren’t able to avoid similar mistakes. To me,
these are all the same mistake, because I don’t understand how different they
are. I don’t understand that saying “never do that again” wasn’t specific
enough, so you understood it as not calling me stupid. I didn’t understand how
different that is to calling yourself stupid, and how different that is to
calling a concept stupid. I only said don’t do “that”, without explaining what
“that” is, so you naturally didn’t know how specific or general I was being. I
could have said “never use that word”, avoiding all confusion, but I did not
understand how to explain what truly bothered me. You did not understand what
truly bothered me either, so you couldn’t figure out what else bothers you and
what doesn’t. If I hate something, would I be OK with you calling it stupid? Are
there any times when I am OK with the word? Neither of us have understood, so
both of us keep harming each other.
Example 9:
If you and I are both given all the ingredients for a cake but we’re not told
what to do with them, I might mix them all together and put them in the oven,
because I assumed that that’s all there is to it. You might recognise that there
are other ways to use the ingredients, so you would not be so quick to do this.
In fact, the order of the ingredients can affect the size of air bubbles,
curdling, hardness, density, etc. . This is why we tend to mix the solid and
liquid ingredients separately.
If my cake came out well because I, by chance, put the ingredients in the
correct order, I will wrongly think that this proves that the order does not
matter. If you try to explain this to me, I will reply that my method has been
proven to work. Because I haven’t understood what is necessary to bake the cake
I like, my next cake will turn out badly, and my confirmation bias will likely
make me think this was not my fault.
Example 10:
You don’t need to understand chemistry to clean a house. But if you do
understand chemistry, you will know not to mix bleach and ammonia, which are
common cleaning products. This results in deadly chloramine gas. Type 1 people
who have been told this can include it in their instinctive reactions, but those
who do not are at risk of lethal consequences. You likely knew this, but did you
know that bleach and acids create a deadly chlorine gas? That includes vinegar
and various other cleaning products for things like toilets, drains, dishes, and
glass. Bleach with alcohol (or even some sources of water) creates chloroform, a
carcinogenic compound that can quickly result in loss of consciousness.
Example 11:
Let’s say that you’re preparing a meal for us, and I tell you that I hate
onions.
* If you ask why, I would have told you that I do not like food with a soft but
crunchy texture. You would be able to extrapolate and ask me if I also do not
like peppers, and I would confirm that. Then you would know not to include
onions or peppers in the meal, and we would both enjoy the meal.
* If you do not ask why, you might make a meal that has no onions, but it has
peppers. I would dislike the meal because it has peppers, and you would be
disappointed that I didn’t like the meal. If you don’t ask why, you wouldn’t
be able to extrapolate, and I would have to try to give you a full list of
foods I don’t like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
[1] Brosnan M, Lewton M, Ashwin C. Reasoning on the Autism Spectrum: A Dual
Process Theory Account. J Autism Dev Disord. 2016 Jun;46(6):2115-2125. doi:
10.1007/s10803-016-2742-4. PMID: 26960339; PMCID: PMC4860198.
TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS HOW AWESOME THIS IS :D:
* Twitter
* Facebook
* Email
* Print
* LinkedIn
* Reddit
* Tumblr
* Pinterest
* Pocket
*
Like Loading...
PAIN
Posted by slizer88 on August 7, 2024
Posted in: philosophy. Tagged: anger, hate, management, pain, self-help,
suffering. 1 Comment
Pain is almost assured in life. Pain triggers our brains to find a way to end
the pain. This impulse is so strong that it can drive people to do terrible
things; things that they would normally never consider. Once pain has gone, we
often are left with the realisation that we have done terrible things that we
regret.
There are two ways to deal with pain:
* We control the pain, and avoid doing things we regret later. We can act in
ways that are consistent with our beliefs, and be happy with our choices.
* We let the pain controls us, doing what it demands. We can act in ways that
go against our beliefs, and regret our choices later.
Controlling Pain
The first way of dealing with pain can be extremely difficult. Children are
generally incapable of it. Most children will do whatever they can to avoid
receiving an injection, even if they know the pain is temporary, and it will
save their lives. Most adults can accept that the momentary pain, no matter how
averse they are to it, is worth it. Some adults may have trauma related to it,
drastically increasing the (mental) pain they feel, understandably making them
less likely to take a life-saving injection. Even in these cases, it is possible
to convince them that it is worth doing.
Being Controlled by Pain
The second way of dealing with pain is extremely easy. All it requires is to do
nothing, and allow pain to take control of our actions. It is resignation and
surrender. Our impulses will do anything to get rid of pain, even if it means we
suffer more in the future, or that we make someone else suffer. In this sense,
pain is a plague that propagates itself from every person who submits to it.
When we let pain control us, we do harm. We get rid of pain by giving it to
someone else. It can be to our future selves, our closest friends and family, or
to strangers.
* Giving pain to our future selves denies the reality of the situation in order
to avoid addressing the problem, because doing so would be too painful.
Rather than processing the pain to eliminate it, we use a coping mechanism to
feel better in the moment. This allows the source of the pain to continue
causing problems, often resulting in it getting worse, causing even greater
pain for us in the future. This is like incurring debt, and having to take
out loans to repay it every time it is collected, resulting in
ever-increasing debt. In this case, it might be ever-increasing pain that
keeps coming back until we address the cause.
* We deny that there is a problem.
* We deny that the problem needs to be addressed.
* We deny that the problem can be solved. (Not to be confused with cases
where the problem truly cannot be solved)
* Giving pain to others requires us to deny that we are doing harm to a human
being that does not deserve it, because no one deserves to suffer. When we
realise that we have hurt other people to spare ourselves, we rightly feel
guilty, because we know it is wrong to hurt people. Guilt gives us pain, and
so we again feel the urge to get rid of this pain. We get rid of the pain of
guilt with denial. The cause of the guilt is the recognition that hurting
people is bad, so we deny some or all of this idea.
* We can deny that harm was done.
* We can deny that who we hurt is a person
* We can deny that the harm was our fault.
* We can deny that it is wrong to hurt people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exceptions
Sometimes there are no feasible solutions to a problem. Sometimes there isn’t
the time, money, or emotional well-being. Even if the problem has a solution,
the participants might not be ready to use that solution. This is particularly
true when the solution requires or risks harm to the participants.
This essay is about how we deal with pain, in particular how avoidance causes
harm. Doing harm to people is bad. That is true for harm due to avoidance, and
harm due to problem solving. Therefore, while people get hurt when we avoid
dealing with our own pain, people also get hurt when they try to solve a problem
in a dangerous situation. That means that the arguments presented in this essay
are intended to minimise harm, not cause more avoidable harm. So these arguments
are intended to promote a healthy approach to pain where we do not hurt other
people, but not when it causes us bodily harm or pain that we cannot handle.
There will be exceptions to the arguments presented.
In general, these argument regard those with good intentions. Anyone with
ill-intent is going to be more likely to harm us. Another exception would be
people who unintentionally cause harm. Such people still deserve to be treated
well, and still deserve to be happy, but so does everyone else in the situation.
For example, consider if your friend has on multiple occasions said something
that hurt you, but is having difficulty figuring out what to avoid saying in the
future. They require an explanation, and if you cannot explain it to them, you
might suffer more than you can handle because they will continue to
unintentionally hurt you. This situation -might- justify some form of avoidance,
but this depends on the individual situation.
For example, domestic abuse should not be tolerated just to avoid a divorce.
That does not mean an abusive partner is subhuman and deserves nothing, it means
they have a mental illness that they deserve to have addressed. That does not
mean it is their partner’s job to help them, if the cost of trying is too high.
Both partners need help, and they need to figure out who is best suited to give
that help. The abused needs immediate help, and the abuser also needs to be
treated.
There are people who are so controlled by pain that they dehumanise anyone who
does harm, because if we acknowledge that a human can do those things, we have
to acknowledge that they deserve to be treated like a human being. This means we
cannot reconcile the need for respect with the desire for revenge. Instead we
dehumanise. Whether on purpose or not, whether it was their fault or not,
whether they could avoid it or not, whether they need help or not, anyone who
does anything wrong is dehumanised so that we can turn our pain into targeted
hatred without feeling guilty.
* If we recognise that villains are humans, we feel guilty and cannot take
revenge.
* If we deny that villains are humans, we can take our revenge on them
guilt-free.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When We Shift Our Pain to Others
These forms of denial are lies we tell ourselves so we think that we do not need
to feel guilty, reducing our pain. One might ask what the issue in this is, or
insist that it is a victimless crime. Denying reality is a form of inadvertent
malice. We know that what we have done has hurt someone, so we have done a bad
thing. The very fact that we need to deny it proves that. If we do not feel any
guilt in hurting others, it enables us to do it again in the future, using the
same denial.
When the pain is traumatic enough, we can even persuade ourselves that it is
ethically justified. The subconscious denial of facts become a conscious
construct that fits the narrative we need to maintain the denial indefinitely.
This leads to problematic ideas such as believing that treating others the way
they treat us is justified, or that survival of the fittest is justified, or
that “an eye for an eye” is justified. These are just forms of selfishness and
revenge that have no justification. These views can be told to others, and being
able to argue our views to others helps persuade us that our actions are
justified. Espousing these views can persuade others to do the same thing, thus
spreading the plague even faster.
This leads to a group of people who share these traits:
* They are particularly susceptible to pain.
* They would rather give their pain to someone else by hurting them, than to
process that pain on their own, sparing others from their lashing out and
hatred.
* They would rather end any difficult relationship, than keep someone in their
lives by working out new solutions.
* They would rather believe there is no solution, than to struggle to find new
solutions.
* They would rather turn pain into blame, anger, and hate.
* They would rather hurt others with an easier situation, than try to make
their current situation better.
When this group is a large enough part of a society, that society is likely to
adapt to these traits. Such a society will be cynical, having denial baked into
it. This means that conflict resolution will be avoided, it will be normal for
people to hate and hurt each other, and it will be normal to end relationships
when things become difficult. Society will not deem solutions to be important,
so they will be less commonly taught. One could describe this as a society of
pain avoidance.
A society where pain is avoided will perpetuate needless suffering and lower
quality of life. For example, relationships that are healthy, positive, and
uplifting will be ended if they require effort to be maintained. If we avoid
situations that have long-term benefits but short-term pain, our lives end up
being worse overall. The more pain we try to avoid, the more happiness we avoid,
making our lives numb at best and miserable at worst. The more we are willing to
put up with pain for greater happiness, health, or other benefits later, the
more fulfilling our lives will be. There are exceptions, but it is generally
better to learn how to process pain rather than avoid it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to Process Pain
Pain is understandably viewed as a single event: a negative feeling that we want
to stop. There are actually several steps:
1. An action occurs that is the root cause of the pain
2. Our senses detect this this action
3. The signal is sent to the brain
4. Our brain turns the signal into a recognition of what the event was
5. Our mind associates that idea with related ideas, such as if we like it, if
it is good, or if we have a trauma related to it
6. Our mind triggers an emotional response based on those related ideas, such
as pain
7. The emotional response triggers physiological responses, such as shouting or
cringing; subconscious responses such as a desire to stop pain; and
conscious responses such as deciding what to do now
This view is essential to understand pain, and understanding is essential to
processing pain in a healthy way.
* Intervening in steps 1 or 2 can proactively prevent pain, either by
preventing events that do more harm than good, or avoiding events even if
they they do more good than they do harm.
* Physical pain is most often dealt with by intervening in step 3, numbing the
pain by preventing signals reaching the brain.
* Intervening in step 6 is the healthiest and most effective way to process
pain, though it requires the most effort. Whether it’s a natural response, a
conscious belief, or trauma, we can sometimes change that response to not
involve pain. For example, if we believe that mathematics is a chore, we will
be more likely to dislike doing it. If however we can be shown that
mathematics is fun, we can do the same activity but without the pain. I do
not think that it is wise to persuade yourself that all painful things are
actually fun or good, but there are some things that we can convince
ourselves do not need to have the emotional response they do. We do not need
to be angry when someone does something we find annoying, instead we can
learn to accept that they do things differently and they enjoy something we
do not, so there’s no point in being annoyed by it. We do not need to be sad
when someone else gets something we want, instead we can be happy for them.
There is no shame in feeling these things, but we do have the option to
change them. They are not easy to learn, and might require therapy to work
through trauma first.
* Intervening in step 7 can be healthy as well. We can un-train, or deprogram
the responses that are triggered by pain. Pain triggers crying in infants,
but that eventually gets deprogrammed, at least for low levels of pain. The
same can be done higher levels of pain. While crying can be a good way to
process high emotions, it is itself highly emotional, which means that it is
a trigger that can create more emotional distress than you would have if you
just tolerated the pain silently. Whether or not we cry, we can still
intervene to change the subconscious impulses we feel. It is possible to
learn to feel pain, but to get rid of the impulse to stop the pain. This
requires intense training, and it cannot be forced on us. If we allow
ourselves to feel pain, we eventually realise that it does not need to be a
bad thing. We can feel the same pain as someone else, but without the torture
of wanting it to stop. This is achieved by exposure therapy. Lastly we can
learn to feel pain but make the conscious choice to not do anything rash to
stop it. This might be learning to not run away from something we need to do,
even when we know it will hurt; or letting a nurse give us an injection, even
though we know it hurts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is pain that comes with struggling, effort, or fighting for what is right.
Pain crushes us underfoot, coercing us to choose the path of least resistance.
Pain takes a hold of us and whispers to change our path to the one it has chosen
for us.
No matter how good a situation is, no matter how happy it makes us, no matter
how fitting or right it is, when a struggle comes in the way of what was once
perfect for us, there are people who will tell themselves that the struggle
cannot be overcome, or that it is no longer worth the effort to overcome, or
that the situation is to blame for the pain that this struggle is causing. No
matter how beautiful something is, there are people who will destroy it because
they cannot stand the pain. They are controlled by pain.
These people will ask “why should I suffer?”. They will insist their own denial
or hatred are a victimless coping mechanism. But this is not true; when they
destroy a beautiful situation they are in, they will hurt those in that
situation that care about them. Their denial will make them believe that their
victims are villains who deserve all the suffering, the blame, the anger, the
hatred that they might receive. Those that are controlled by pain will stop
caring, stop loving, sacrifice all the beauty and meaning in their lives just to
avoid the struggle to make things better.
TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS HOW AWESOME THIS IS :D:
* Twitter
* Facebook
* Email
* Print
* LinkedIn
* Reddit
* Tumblr
* Pinterest
* Pocket
*
Like Loading...
BEYOND PAIN AND PLEASURE
Posted by slizer88 on July 12, 2024
Posted in: philosophy. Tagged: help, hurt, improvement, philosophy, self, stoic,
stoicism. Leave a comment
Human beings are born with free will, limited by the control that our instincts
and impulses place on our minds. We wail in the face of pain, and hurt others
without thinking.
As we grow, we experience pain the same as before, but we learn to overcome the
impulse to cry out at it. We do not become numb to pain, instead we detach the
feeling of physical pain from the physical reactions we once had. It hurts just
as much, but the pain doesn’t bother us as much.
As we grow, we feel the same impulses, but we learn to resist them. We still
want to run away from suffering, or take what we desire, but we know that it is
not worth it.
Learning these things can be made easier with habits and other tricks, but there
are things that remain difficult. There are things that our subconscious minds
compel us to do which seem to never change. No matter how old we get, no matter
how much experience we have, some things feel beyond our control to change. This
can be seen as a problem, if we insist on making things easier. This is rooted
in a paradox: if we try to overcome the control that our impulses have over us,
by making those impulses weaker, then we are just obeying the impulse to make
things easier. Fighting one impulse with another won’t change that our actions
are still being controlled by something that isn’t our true will.
We are designed to avoid what gives us negative emotions like pain, and to seek
what gives us positive emotions like happiness or pleasure. These are the
impulses that emerge when they see fit, compelling us to decide in their favour,
and then they disappear once we’ve done what they asked. They fight against our
free will for control of our decisions and how we interact with the world. This
is the most fundamental question that every human being must answer: to what
extent should we allow ourselves to be controlled?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding the Mind
We do not have full control of our biology. We are not able to identify every
diseases we have, instead we had to build tools to diagnose them. In the same
way, we have to build mental tools to diagnose what is wrong with our minds.
Everyone’s impulses have different intensities, and we all experience different
situations.
* Some of us experience overwhelming compulsions to do things that we would not
have otherwise done. When this happens, we quickly realise that we lost
control, and we likely regret whatever it is we did. These experiences show
us how dangerous those impulses are. We are compelled to do terrible things,
to seek out sex, drugs, violence, or solitude, at great expense to ourselves.
We spend large amounts of time, effort, money, and health in these pursuits,
and we hurt ourselves and others. This is recognition of one’s impulses.
* Others never experience anything as intense or clearly harmful. In the
absence of clear harm, it can be difficult to identify impulses as having the
potential for harm. More importantly, it can be difficult to identify
impulses as separate to free will. If we cannot differentiate our impulses
and instincts from our free will, then we are incapable of figuring out what
we truly want, and what we simply desire. Instead, they both seem equally
valid as things to pursue, but some of them are more compelling than others.
Normally, we base our life goals on what we truly want, not on temporary
impulses, but if we treat our desires as wants, then we can base our life
goals on trying to recreate temporary desires. We might even attribute
meaning to things that have none, such as the experience of being on drugs.
In that case, the subtlety of our impulses takes full control of our lives,
in the most insidious way. This is blindness to one’s impulses.
* Some of those who recognise impulses as an adversarial force can still be
overwhelmed by them. The regret we feel from losing control of our actions is
a darkness that must be addressed. We either accept the situation for what it
really is, or we allow the darkness to consume us. Those who choose reality
must recognise impulses as a foreign entity to our free will. Those who are
overwhelmed by despair instead reject reality, no longer viewing their
impulses as separate to them, and they treat their desires as their true
goals. This is a surrender to one’s impulses.
Those that are ignorant or have surrendered to their impulses require assistance
beyond the scope of philosophy, such as therapy. For them to go beyond pain and
pleasure, they must first recognise the dangers and problems associated with
them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Problem
If we recognise free will as a fundamental good, then being controlled is a
clear violation of that good. Some people instead see the avoidance of negative
emotions and the pursuit of positive emotions as more important. This cannot be
a fundamental truth, because it is derived from the experience of how our
impulses make us feel. We only care about pain and pleasure because we have felt
them, and have felt the compulsion to continue avoiding or pursuing them. That
means they are derived, not fundamental. They only exist because of flaws in our
brains, which can be overcome or even removed. We can exist without pain and
pleasure, and also without the impulses associated with them. We can fight
against our impulses, and achieve what we truly want, without regretting that we
didn’t do what we desired. On the other hand, surrendering to our desires
generally leads to regrets, because we chose temporary satisfaction at the
expense of something actually meaningful.
True happiness is the result of having attained what truly matters to us. What
matters to us is a choice made by our free will, as a result of having
understood the world. When we understand the suffering and injustice others
experience, we decide want to help them, not because it will make us feel
better, but because it is the right thing to do. When we understand the meaning
of great art, we decide we want to create, because it adds value to the world.
When we understand the beauty of creating and raising a living being, we seek to
parent and guide, not for our own sake, but for theirs. Happiness is the result
of doing what is right, not the goal of it. Happiness is a feeling, but it is
not only a feeling; it is the acceptance and understanding of reality, of good
and right things having been done.
Pleasure is nothing more than a feeling. It is chemicals in your brain that
generate an experience. Pleasure needs no meaning, it can be induced at any
time, with or without reason. Pleasure is a chemical reaction resulting in a
feeling. It has no meaning, so a life that seeks pleasure is a life devoid of
meaning. Such a life is a rejection of free will, and so it is a rejection of
humanity. It is reducing one’s self to nothing more than an animal, a biological
machine with an input and output. It has no meaning or purpose, it simply exists
like a factory, producing the same results over and over until it breaks apart.
This is not to say that people who choose pleasure are worthless, or should be
looked down on. It is exactly the opposite: to recognise the futility in such a
life is to recognise that such a person deserves better. People live better
lives when their lives are meaningful. The more we surrender to pain and
pleasure, the more we focus on these chemical reactions. We become blind to
meaning and beauty, we avoid the things that truly matter to us because they
hurt too much for us. It’s not that we prefer seeking pleasure and avoiding
pain, rather it’s that our impulses are too strong. Free will cannot want such
things unless it does not understand what they are. When we “want” pleasure, we
actually “desire” it, which means that we don’t want it, our impulse wants it.
Those that are stuck in the desires of pain and pleasure are being controlled,
and they need help to break free. They are not worse people, and they deserve to
be happy instead of pleased.
What lies beyond pain and pleasure? What is there to live for if not those? The
easy answer is true happiness. Sex and drugs offer a pleasant but meaningless
feeling, that does not make our lives any better. To seek pleasure is to be
controlled, because human beings do not want pleasure, only the lower brain
does. To live an intense and fulfilling life, to be human, is to exert our free
will. To be free, to live a more intense life, to be truly happy, to be the best
human beings we can be, we must overcome our impulses. Many things lie beyond
pain and pleasure, depending on what drives you. If you seek to feel, then true
happiness will far surpass any pleasure you could possibly experience, no matter
how crazy good the sex or drugs are. If you seek to be, then be the best human
being you can, and be free, do not be a slave. If you seek to do, then overcome
the challenges of the eternal struggle of being free. If you seek to know, then
know the heightened state of true freedom, how the world changes from this
perspective, and the philosophical changes that come with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overcoming
Once we recognise the problem that impulses give us, and the meaning of the
fight against our impulses, we accept that resisting urges is a fundamental part
of living a good life. Knowing this does not make it an easy task; it is an
eternal struggle that is made harder by the intensity of one’s impulses. Freedom
is a goal worth the difficult struggle. We can live as emotion machines, but
that is a life that tricks you into thinking it is better. It is a
self-deception, a lie that makes your life worse, while making you thinking your
life is better. The fight to live freely brings pain, prevents pleasure, but
ultimately brings happiness.
If we wish to overcome our urges, it would be easier to eliminate them entirely.
If this were to be possible, there would be no struggle, and there would be
nothing inhibiting our free will from within our own bodies. This seems like an
appealing approach because it’s easy, so it is difficult to argue against the
practical outcomes. However, there is an argument to be made for the struggle
itself having meaning. This is not to say that it is good for people to suffer,
rather that suffering for a good cause doesn’t only cause harm, it makes people
better at the same time. Inflicted suffering is bad, but self-inflicted
suffering can be constructive if it is willing and meaningful. Plenty of people
suffer for no good reason, and that is bad. When we do not seek struggle, it’s
unlikely that we will improve from it. No one should be forced to do this, we
should convince them to seek it out of their own will.
However, there are others who seek out struggles, because it hones their skills,
making them better people. The challenge might be fun, but more importantly it
makes us stronger. It is a test of our willpower, and overcoming it is itself
proving to the universe that we exist, we are free, and we can exert our free
will to affect reality. In the pursuit of a meaningful life, our ability to
fight against the oppression of being controlled is proof to ourselves that we
matter, and it imprints our will onto history. Things without free will can have
an impact on history, but to do so willingly is a more worthy, meaningful, and
beautiful way to do so. Fighting and overcoming the constraints that our
impulses impose on us is one of the most beautiful things we can witness. To see
someone fight through pain and resist temptation for a good cause is one of the
most meaningful things we can hope to do in our lives. It is difficult to
explain why this is so meaningful and beautiful. I believe one of the most
beautiful things in the world is the triumph of free will against the oppression
of desire. The greatest person we can aspire to be is someone whose mind is free
to seek truth, to love, and to do what is right, without personal gain, and
despite personal loss.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try, There is no Failure
Our instincts and urges are built into our brains, so if we do not remove them,
they can influence us at any time. Even if we learn to resist a temptation
fully, a similar temptation might come to us later, which we will also need to
learn to resist. For every urge we master, a different urge might appear. To
make things harder, an urge that we mastered might be forgotten, and return when
we lower our guard. To live a meaningful life, we must be eternally vigilant
against allowing our lives to be controlled. This is so difficult that no one
should feel ashamed or weak when they fail to resist a temptation. It is almost
inevitable that we will at some point succumb to a temptation, or have an
instinct kick in. These are mistakes that we should try to avoid, but we should
accept and learn from them when they happen. Shame and judgment serve no purpose
in this struggle, from ourselves or from others.
There is no shame in defeat, so long as the spirit is unconquered. We have an
ideal that we strive towards, that of a human being that has surpassed pain and
pleasure, that no longer makes decisions based on how much pain or pleasure a
decision will give us. This ideal is someone who acts for the truth, to make
ethical decisions, to act of their own free will, and to put more love and
happiness into the world. The ideal is someone who is not restricted and does
not make mistakes due to our urges to seek pleasure and avoid pain. We do not
need to be this ideal; it is both acceptable and expected to fail to reach the
ideal. The ideal exists to teach us what we should do, that is all. We will
likely fail to reach it, but what is important is that we try. Trying to reach
the ideal, even if we fail, is what makes our lives better. That means that
looking at the ideal as a matter of success or failure is a mistake. If we try
to reach the ideal, the result doesn’t matter, so we cannot fail. That does not
mean that we shouldn’t try as hard, rather it means that “failure” is not a
result. All that matters is that we try. Trying is important and good. Trying is
all that we can ask of anyone.
TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS HOW AWESOME THIS IS :D:
* Twitter
* Facebook
* Email
* Print
* LinkedIn
* Reddit
* Tumblr
* Pinterest
* Pocket
*
Like Loading...
SLIZER’S GUIDE TO LIFE
Posted by slizer88 on July 3, 2024
Posted in: philosophy. Tagged: advice, advise, coach, help, life, philosophy,
self, self-help, selfhelp. Leave a comment
This is a guide on my personal opinions of the best way to live. It’s not
telling you what to do, or what you should care about, it’s just a framework
that you can apply to your life however you see fit. It’s OK to disagree with
it; I don’t think everything in this must necessarily be correct. None of us can
be certain that we are correct. If our views are correct, they will be able to
withstand any criticism. The only way to know, is to try.
I wrote this because I have seen people make many mistakes, and made many
myself. Sometimes those mistakes are acceptable, and sometimes they ruin lives.
I didn’t write this because I think I have all the answers, I wrote this because
I’m looking for answers. I think this guide helps avoid those mistakes. I also
think this guide leads to finding one’s best life, in whatever form that takes
for you. The only way I’ll know if I’ve come to correct conclusions is to write
it, test my theory’s consistency and reasoning, and publish it to the world to
see what everyone else thinks.
You don’t have to read the whole essay, and you don’t have to read it in order.
There are four main sections. You can just read the short ones if you like, and
refer to the longer ones if you want to know more.
1. Introduction (why bother think about any of this?)
2. The Fundamental Values (very short)
3. The Fundamental Virtues (full list)
4. Explanation (detailed explanation for every point)
5. How to Improve (advice on how to actually implement)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
Philosophy is the means by which we determine what we want in life. Some people
want to feel certain things, others want to be certain things, and others want
to do certain things. Some people think that happiness is the measure of a good
life, others think that being a good person is the measure of a good life, and
some people think that we must achieve certain goals to live a good life.
If we do not choose what we want, someone else will do it for us. Our parents
might tell us that we should try to be happy, or to try to make a lot of money,
or to try to avoid our parents’ suffering. If we do not engage in philosophy, we
will be stuck with goals someone else chose for us, and this will change us in
ways we will likely regret later in life. So we should decide what the ideal
life is to us.
Without this ideal of what a good life is, we wouldn’t know what we want to do.
There is nothing wrong with having ideals, in fact, we need them in order to
know what practical things to do. We cannot be practical unless we have ideals.
All our practical beliefs, such as what to trust, whether we should go to
university, what job we should have, how much money we need, if we want a
partner, or if we want children, are all based on what we consider to be a good
life. We have an idea of what an ideal life is, then we try to get as close to
that as is reasonable. Having ideals does -not- mean that we must attain that
perfect ideal, rather it means we have changing ideas of how close to the ideal
is acceptable. For example, our ideal life might involve being an astronaut
exploring space, but since that is not possible, that ideal life might inspire
us to be astrophysicists. We don’t need to reach our ideals, but we need ideals
to reach what we want.
Our practical goals are based on our ideals, which are determined by what we
consider a good life to be. What makes life good is the core of philosophy.
Philosophy can be viewed in complicated theories, but we can also simplify
theories into core, fundamental principles. This essay is a list of the values
and virtues that I think lead to the best life, and are consistent with each
other and the truth. I think that most of the pain we experience comes from not
valuing and applying these values in our lives (or from other people not
applying them with us).
These values not only avoid mistakes, but make our lives worth living by
offering meaning. If we lack meaning, then we lack a reason to live, reducing us
to machines following orders, which gives us no reason to continue living. To be
the best human beings we can be, we need reasons to live. This gives us reasons
to continue living, for our own sake, and for the sake of others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUES
The fundamental values are:
1. Truth– Doubt what you think you know to always seek truth, and never lie to
yourself or others.
2. Ethics– Be kind, and always do what is right over what is easy.
3. Free Will– Never seek to control, and never allow yourself to be controlled.
4. Feelings– Love passionately, and never hate.
These values do not mean much on their own, but if I value these things, I can
develop further philosophical beliefs that will lead to a healthier and happier
life.
In short: always seek the truth, be kind, be strong, and love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FUNDAMENTAL VIRTUES
These broad concepts can be broken down into the reasons for them being
fundamental. These reasons are virtues that we can recognise as specific things
to be or do.
1. Truth
* Open Mindedness: proactively figure out if I am wrong.
* Curiosity: proactively seek out more knowledge.
* Reason: process information logically and with consideration for what I
really want.
* Honesty: do not lie to myself or others.
2. Free Will
* Self-Control: do not allow my free will to be controlled by emotions,
urges, or impulses.
* Autonomy: do not try to control others except in extreme circumstances.
* Decisions: value my freedom by taking the opportunity to make good
decisions.
3. Ethics
* Help: proactively assist when I can.
* Non-Violence: do not harm when it is reasonably avoidable.
* Kindness: do not hate when it is reasonably avoidable.
* Objectivity: always believe what is right over what is easy.
* Courage: always do what is right over what is easy.
4. Feelings
* Emotions: never repress; live an intense life but always in control.
* Love: try to understand others as deeply as possible, and appreciate the
beauty of their souls.
* Happiness: try to attain what is truly important to you, instead of trying
to feel good.
There are also non-fundamental values that we can derive from the fundamental
virtues:
1. People: (free will, ethics, being able to feel)
1. Care about all people equally, including myself, within reason.
2. Living Things: (autonomy, ethics, being able to feel)
1. All living things deserve to be respected and continue living, within
reason.
3. Balance: (truth, ethics)
1. Extremes are often harmful, balance is often beneficial.
4. Trust: (truth, free will, ethics, feelings)
1. Believe people as much as possible, even if it harms me, unless the risk
is too high.
5. Responsibility: (truth, free will, ethics, feelings)
1. Never blame anyone for something they cannot control, and take
responsibility for what I can reasonably control.
6. Awareness: (truth, feelings)
1. Learn all information that is reasonably available to me.
7. Consequences: (truth, ethics, free will, feelings)
1. Predict and observe the consequences of my actions, to avoid doing harm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPLANATIONS
1. Truth
* Open Mindedness: If we value truth, we seek to replace our false beliefs
with true ones.
* If we value truth, we must be open minded. This means being comfortable
with being proven wrong. If we are confident we are right, and refuse to
listen when someone else thinks we are wrong, then we care more about
feeling comfortable than we care about truth. If we value truth, we seek
to be proven wrong (when we are wrong), because we don’t want to hold
wrong information.
* Curiosity: If we value truth, we seek out new information.
* This takes the form of curiosity, and appreciating (enjoying) learning.
We might not like our school, teachers, or schoolwork, but learning is
fun when done properly.
* Learning about a wide array of topics shows us that there are
connections we did not know about. It lets us realise that things can be
more complicated than we thought, and that things that seemed irrelevant
actually matter.
* We do not need to learn all things. There are too many things to take
every opportunity to learn, as we do not have enough time.
* While it is OK to focus on learning the things we enjoy, it is also
important to learn the things that we know are beneficial to us.
* It is also important to learn about things we neither enjoy nor see a
benefit from, because we may come to enjoy them and we may find out
they are beneficial.
* Of all the things we do not know, we might have a vague idea of what
sorts of unknowns they are, or we might have no idea. For example we
might not know what choice will be made, but we might know the options.
Other times we might not know what the options are limited to, so the
choice made might be something we never thought of. Knowing the
difference can be very important when we act with imperfect information.
* Reason: Everything true is reasonable.
* Everything that happens has a cause.
* If something has no rational explanation, it cannot be true.
* If we cannot find an explanation, that does not mean there is no
explanation. There might be a hidden reason we do not know about.
* Dogma is believing in something without caring about the explanation.
That means that dogma allows you to believe things that have no
evidence or reason, since it doesn’t care about those things. It
allows you to believe anything, true or false. If you are dogmatic,
you can believe that the Earth is flat, despite the contradictions
this causes. Dogma is luck.
* This should be avoided whenever possible. Reason has strict
requirements that cut out falsehoods, while dogma does not.
* Reason is the combination of logic, emotional intelligence, and values.
* Logic only gives us true conclusions if we have true premises and
understand the situation well. Logic cannot tell us what we want.
* Emotional intelligence is necessary to figure out what we want,
because the emotions we feel depend on what we want.
* What we value is subjective.
* If we choose what to do based on logic alone, we will always be
operating on unchecked assumptions, because logic needs premises to
function on.
* If we choose what to do based on emotions alone, we will allow our
impulses and instincts to control us. This will lead us away from
what truly makes us happy, in favour of what gives us pleasure right
now.
* Honesty: If we value truth, we want to have the truth and spread truth to
others.
* Lying to others denies the truth to them. This violates value of truth
because I am choosing to spread lies. It violates the value of free
will, because decisions depend on information, so lacking information,
or having wrong information, can change decisions. That means that when
I lie to someone, I am changing their decisions, and not letting them
make the decisions their free will would have made in their ideal
situation.
* Lying to myself denies myself the information I need to make decisions
that benefit me, in exchange for avoiding temporary pain. It’s a
preference for lies over truth, which violates the value of truth, it
violates the value of my own free will (instead choosing my subconscious
desires), and it violates the principle of caring for my own well-being
(in the long-term).
2. Free Will
* Self-Control: I do not allow my emotions, urges, and impulses to control
me, because that allows them to override my free will.
* My emotions can alter my perception of what I want, making me do things
that aim away from what I really want. When the emotions go away, I’m
stuck in a place I don’t want to be.
* My urges tempt me to choose something explicitly away from what I truly
want.
* My impulses take control of my body and mind, so I must fight them when
they happen.
* Autonomy: I value others’ free will, so I allow them to make decisions
when ethical.
* Stopping others from exercising their free will is unethical.
* When I do not think their choice is ethical, I respect their free will
by discussing why I disagree with them.
* Let’s say we cannot come to an agreement, and they perform an unethical
action. If their action is more unethical than me violating their
autonomy, then I should stop them from performing their unethical
action.
* Decisions: Making decisions is exercising my free will, which makes my
mark on life and the universe.
* We are blessed with agency, the ability to make decisions. Those that
are not allowed to do this, are forced to realise the value of it, so
those that are allowed to do this should make the effort to appreciate
it. Those that have freedom should give freedom to those who are denied
it.
* Note: Free will can instead be understood as some weaker forms of agency,
rather than the far more complicated idea of free will.
3. Ethics
* Help: Because people have value, and their well-being matters, they
deserve to be helped when their wellcbeing is threatened.
* Because I am a person like anyone else, my well-being matters as much as
anyone else’s.
* I am not more important than anyone else.
* No one else is more important than me.
* If I must choose between helping myself or someone else, I must choose
who needs help more.
* If I need help more than someone else, then I might need to sacrifice
their well-being for my own sake.
* If they need help more than I do, then I might sacrifice my well-being
for their sake.
* This is a matter of choosing what is most ethical, even if all choices
are unethical.
* Non-Violence:
* Because human beings, and living things in general have value, harming
them is acting against that value.
* Harming someone can be physical (punching), emotional (insulting),
practical (stealing), or perhaps something else.
* Harm acts against someone’s well-being, denying them truth, inhibiting
their autonomy, or causing negative experiences (or inhibiting positive
experiences).
* Viewing harm as desirable is “malice”. This is unethical because it
violates the principle that people have value. It also prioritises
yourself (your emotions) over their well-being, thus creating
inequality. In most cases, my emotions can be dealt with without harming
others. It is only in cases such as a person who received no love or
help, someone who is traumatised and abused, where they might have no
other outlet than to harm others.
* To wish harm onto someone else is the opposite of loving them. While it
is possible to wish harm onto someone we love, that is loving them less,
at least for a short period of time.
* Kindness: Because people have value, and their well-being matters, we
should care about them.
* If people matter, then all people matter. I matter as much as anyone
else, so I should treat them the same way I treat myself.
* Kindness makes other people and ourselves happier, improves their
well-being, and shows them how they can do the same to improve the
world.
* Objectivity: Things have intrinsic ethical value, and extrinsic ethical
value.
* Good things are always good, and bad things are always bad. ie. Murder
is always bad
* Ethical value is not the same as ethical justification. ie. Murdering
Hitler is justified, so we should do it, but it’s still bad.
* To say that justification makes something ethically good is just an
emotional coping mechanism to avoid dealing with the consequences of
your actions. It has no basis in truth. ie. Murdering is normally bad,
but murdering Hitler is ethically good, so I don’t need to feel bad
about it.
* A single thing can simultaneously have good and bad aspects, which add
up in a sort of qualitative ethical calculus. This means that it can be
more good or bad for any given situation.
* If an action has multiple outcomes, each having their own ethical value,
then the action can be judged as good or bad by using an ethical
calculus.
* If a decision has multiple options, each having their own ethical
values, the most ethical option can be determined by comparing each
option, by using an ethical calculus.
* There is currently no way to know how the ethical calculus works, nor a
way to the exact value of the calculus. The calculus exists, but we have
limited knowledge of it. It likely is not quantitative in nature.
* Courage: Courage is fighting impulses, urges, and desires to do what is
right.
* Because people deserve help, those that can help, should help.
* Help often requires self-sacrifice, or generates anxiety, stress, or
pain. If we are able to handle such things, and there is nothing else
prohibiting us, then we have little reason to not help. If the help
offers more ethical good than it does ethical bad to us, it is worth
helping.
* Even if helping is justified, we might have strong impulses or urges not
to help. For example, we might have severe anxiety when we think about
what we must do to help, especially if it will cause us pain. If I see
someone who is very sad because they are very hungry, and I wouldn’t
mind missing a meal, then it would be justified to give that person my
meal. They would benefit from it more than I would. So even though it
would be bad for me to miss a meal, and it would be bad for them to miss
a meal, it’s worse for them because they would suffer more than I would.
* Never choose what is easy over what is right.
4. Feelings
* Emotions:
* Human beings feel emotions that can have great effects on us, causing a
range of experiences from happiness to harm.
* Happiness is a positive experience that should be valued
* Pain is a negative experience, and is part of the reason that harm is
bad.
* Happiness and pain have inherent value, but their total value depends
on the extent to which they affect the person experiencing them.
* Making someone happy is good, unless they need to process sadness.
* People need to feel sad when something bad happens.
* Some people benefit or suffer more than others, even when they feel
the same emotion with the same intensity.
* We do not choose what to feel.
* Therefore, we cannot be blamed for feeling any emotion, and we should
never feel guilty or ashamed for it.
* Emotions give our lives meaning.
* Feeling fewer, or no emotions, makes our lives much less meaningful.
* Emotions are rational.
* Justified emotions are caused by thoughts and actions.
* The nature of the thought or action determines which emotion you
should feel, their intensity, and their duration.
* It is right to feel good when good things happen, and it is right to
feel bad when bad things happen.
* Emotions can be caused by neurology, biology, and other factors that
have no clear justification.
* Their cause is rational, but they have no rational justification. We
shouldn’t feel bad for feeling it, but we would be better off
changing the trigger for it.
* While these emotions are not justified, no one should feel ashamed
for having them. They are not your fault, and you are not a bad
person for having them. You are not broken, inferior, or unworthy.
* Being unjustified means that one should see a psychological or
medical professional to address these emotions.
* Both positive and negative emotions can be unjustified.
* Feeling happy when seeing people die is something that we need
help to change.
* Feeling anger when seeing cute kittens is something that we need
help to change.
* Love: Love is a deep understanding and appreciation for the fundamental
core of a person of thing.
* Love can exist for a person, or for an idea.
* To love a story, a character, a virtue, or anything else abstract, is
like understanding art. We push through the dense tall grass and
foliage, and up the mountain, we struggle to arrive at the core of
what the thing really is, what that means, and why it matters.
* To love requires us to understand.
* To understand an idea is to see all the connections it has to other
things, and to see how it affects the human mind and soul. To love an
idea is to see the beauty of what that idea truly is.
* When we first meet someone, we can be enamored by their appearance,
and that is fine, but that is not true love. It is only a shallow
appreciation for their appearance, what is on the outside.
* To love, we must try to understand.
* We must not allow our bias to paint them in a better light than is
justified, but that bias can also counteract our negative biases,
thus allowing us to appreciate what we might normally dismiss.
* Understanding can be extremely difficult and painful, but these are
more than worth the effort for love.
* We might only get a glimpse into a person’s core (which we will call a
soul), but the soul is so rich, that even this can be an overwhelming
source of amazement and love. Love is not just understanding who someone
else is, but understanding and experiencing the beauty of who they are.
The mind experiences the world via sensory input, but love in a sense
transcends this limitation, bringing us into almost direct contact with
another mind. It is the connection of two souls. To love is to
understand the beauty of someone’s soul, and to experience that person’s
soul along with them. To love someone is to be them, along with them.
* Love can be clouded by misunderstanding, particularly when we are
confident instead of trying to understand.
* Love is not just a feeling, it is a connection.
* Once we have touched another’s soul, our souls become linked, like
trees whose roots have grown together, becoming a single tree.
* The feeling of love can die, but love itself cannot.
* Love can be forgotten. This happens most often in the form of
self-delusion and denial, which eliminates the feeling of love.
* Love can exist between two people even if one does not feel it, or if
neither feel it. We have a connection of love between family, friends,
and romantic partners, because there already exists a connection
between them.
* Love is fostered and increased through actions, but does not require
action nor presence to survive. Only the feeling of love requires
maintenance. The feeling of love is also important, because it affects
our emotions and our ability to understand each other.
* Happiness: Happiness is a state of our lives being in accordance with what
we truly want.
* Happiness is felt, but it is not only a feeling.
* Pleasure is a positive feeling that is often confused with true
happiness. One can actually be in pain or sadness while being happy,
because happiness is not just an emotion, it is a state of being.
* Happiness is always more rewarding and worthy than pleasure.
Conclusions:
1. People: All people have inherent value. (free will, ethics, being able to
experience things)
* We do not value people based on how useful they are to us, because that is
treating people as a means to an end. People should be treated as the ends
to which we aspire to. We do things to help people, because people’s
well-being has value.
* People have value, and I am a person, so I have value.
* Since people have value simply because of what makes them people, then all
people have equal value. I do not matter less than you, and you do not
matter less than I do.
* Valuing others less than myself, when I have no greater need than them,
is selfishness.
* Valuing others over myself, when they have no greater need then I do, is
excessive selflessness.
* Sometimes we have to choose between ethical harm due to lying, or ethical
harm to a person. The truth has ethical value, and a lack of truth
generally hurts people. However, people generally have the highest ethical
value. We should first try to find a way to tell the truth without hurting
anyone. If that is not possible, it might be necessary to forsake the
truth in this case, in order to avoid harming people.
* Separate people from their actions. A person always has inherent value and
meaning, even if they have done, felt, or think bad things.
* Bad things can be regretted, bad feelings pass, and bad thoughts can be
corrected. Everyone is capable of improving, so no one should be judged
forever. Everyone deserves forgiveness, and an infinite amount of
chances to improve. Improving is difficult.
* If we limit how many chances someone gets, we are harming them to avoid
dealing with something difficult. Most of the time, this is not
justified.
* Sometimes people abuse the chances we give them, because they are
malicious or deceptive. In these cases, we must only give chances to
those who truly wish to change.
* It is difficult to know who truly wants to change. It is wrong to assume
that someone is lying about wanting to change, just because they have
failed to change. This is putting an unfair burden and judgment on them,
based on their skill rather than their intent.
* To give up on someone is to selfishly harm them permanently. We might
temporarily avoid someone, to avoid harming ourselves, but it is a grave
offence to do permanent harm to someone.
* In the case of malice and abuse, there is good reason to avoid that
person, to harm them in self-defence, or even in extreme cases, to kill
them to prevent them doing more harm. If we do not truly know if they
have changed, we have good reason to be cautious. We should not risk our
lives, but we should also not harm needlessly.
* Ultimately, this is what we should do: listen to people without making
assumptions, and get people help to change. People are worth it; both
others, and yourself. Balance protecting yourself with being
open-minded. There is a strong temptation to just pick what is most
convenient for us and be done with it, but this is wrong. If you are
going to hurt someone, you had better not have gotten anything wrong due
to assumptions, and it had better be justified.
2. Living Things: All living things have inherent value because they have
autonomy. (free will, ethics, being able to experience things)
* Living things might not have the capability to experience, nor the free
will to choose, but they act on their own, and eventually lead to
experience and free will. To respect even the simplest life is to respect
these possibilities. If our simple living ancestors did not have the same
opportunities to survive, we would not be here today. To respect all
living things is to respect the miracle of life, and to respect agency and
experience via possibility.
3. Balance: Avoiding excess can prevent harm in certain situations. (truth,
ethics)
* Reason lets us figure out what things harm us, and what options are
better. Generally, reason will let us know that balance between extremes
leads to the best outcome.
* Sometimes extremes are more beneficial, or ethically necessary even if
they are not normally healthy.
4. Trust: Believe what others say, within reason. (truth, ethics, free will,
feelings)
* If we do not believe others when they make a claim, and they are telling
the truth, then:
* We have chosen lies over the truth, but we did not do so knowingly, so
we can’t be blamed for that.
* We have harmed the other person’s agency, since we have blocked their
ability to reason with us. Even if they tell us what we want to know,
our mistrust means that their actions have no effect on us.
* They might be hurt by our lack of trust in them. The reason that we
mistrust them can easily be an insult, or a harsh judgment, which might
harm them emotionally. These reasons might not even be justified, making
them feel worse.
* In conclusion: mistrusting someone prioritises my practical benefits of
being lied to, sacrificing their feelings and ability to do things. In
many cases, this violates the ethical principle of treating people
equally.
* If we do believe others when they lie, then:
* We have chosen to risk negative practical harm to ourselves, in favour
of making sure that the other knows they have someone who they can go to
when they need help.
* We have chosen lies over the truth, but we did not do so knowingly, so
we can’t be blamed for that.
* We have respected their autonomy and feelings.
* In conclusion: trusting someone even if they might be lying prevents
doing harm to others. The only time we shouldn’t do this is when the
harm it does to us outweighs the harm it does to the liar.
5. Responsibility: We can only be responsible for what we can do. (truth,
ethics, free will, feelings)
* This includes our own choices, and our inaction when we could have
intervened.
* Never blame someone for something they cannot control.
* Never assume what people can control. This leads to people with clinical
depression being told to cheer up, because others don’t understand that
they don’t control that. It leads to autistic people being given
instructions they weren’t able to know the meaning of, and being blamed
for not having taken chances to improve, when they were never given a
fair chance.
* We must take responsibility for everything reasonably within our control.
If we can reasonably help, we should. If helping carries too great a cost,
we probably shouldn’t.
* When we have partial control, we are only partially responsible.
* It makes sense to feel bad when we choose wrong, but we should not
continue to feel guilt, shame, sadness, or anger, because those are
harmful and without benefit.
* It would indicate a lack of conscience to not feel bad when doing
something bad. We should not feel ashamed or guilty, but we should seek
psychological help for this.
* Forgive yourself and others when they make mistakes.
* Pay attention to the consequences of your actions. As free agents, we can
change the world, even if only in small ways. We have the responsibility
to change the world for the better, and we cannot know if we’re fulfilling
that responsibility unless we pay attention to the full extent what we do.
This means that for every important thing that happens, I should try to
figure out why it happened. If I get sick, I should think about what
caused it, which helps me by knowing what I can avoid. If I do not think
about these things, I will get sick and suffer more than I have to, and I
might infect others without knowing it, since I didn’t figure out what
caused it.
* If I do not care about the consequences of my actions, I will likely do
a lot of harm without realising it. It’s like pushing random buttons in
the cockpit of an airplane; some of them might do nothing, but some
might put everyone in the plane at risk. Some of the damage I did might
be fixable, but then I’ve forced someone else to correct my mistakes.
Some of the damage might be permanent. If I don’t know what a button
does, I shouldn’t press it. Not caring about what I do is just a form of
inadvertent malice.
6. Awareness: To know the truth and to do good things, we must seek the truth.
To seek the truth, we must make an effort to be aware of the things we can
know. (truth, feelings)
1. If we are truly interested in seeking knowledge and truth, we must be
aware of what truth exists around us, even if we do not think it is worth
our time. There are many unknown unknowns for us to learn about. It is
easy to think that the only subjects that exist are the ones we learned
about in school, and that all learning falls into one of those subjects.
If we make an effort to become aware of other fields, we discover that
there are many subjects never even mentioned in school, such as chaos
theory, graph theory, game theory, or game design. Always be wary of
assuming that things are known unknowns; verify that we did not miss
unknown unknowns.
7. Consequences: Our actions have effects on the world, other people, and
ourselves. If we care about the world, people, or ourselves, then we should
care about the effects of our actions on them. To care about the effects of
our actions, we must know what effects our actions have. It is easy to
affect other people without knowing it, so we must make an effort to predict
and verify the effects of our actions. (truth, ethics, free will, feelings)
1. Free will, ethics, and truth combine together to form an extension of the
virtue of awareness: as free agents, we must determine if the truth of
our actions is ethical.
2. Prediction is the first step to awareness. If we plan to do something,
and we do not think about what will happen as a result, then we have no
idea if our actions will have good or bad consequences. Acting without
knowing if we’re doing harm is like pushing random buttons in an airplane
cockpit; one button might turn off the air conditioning, while another
might shut off an engine. If we eat food without thinking about who it
belongs to, we might deprive people of their meals. If we do not think
about the words we use, what we say might hurt someone. If we do not
think about where we park our cars, we may block someone else’s car,
preventing them from being able to get to work.
3. Active observation is the second step. For example, it’s easy to steal
from someone and not stick around to see how that has affected them.
Thieves often lie to themselves to avoid facing the reality of their
consequences, by assuming that the person will not miss what has been
taken. To make sure this illusion is not dispelled, they avoid actually
seeing how their victim reacts, because the stolen item might have had
sentimental value. If the thief sees the victim cry, it will be harder
for them to believe the lie they told themselves. If I eat food that
isn’t mine, park my car, or say things to other people, and I do not stay
to see the consequences of those things, then I am not taking
responsibility for my actions, and I am needlessly risking hurting
others.
4. There is a practical limit to how much we can predict and observe,
because we have limited information and time. A reasonable effort should
be made to get information and reason with that information to predict
what can happen. Then we should determine which outcomes are most likely,
and how worth they are to risk happening or not happening.
1. If a good outcome is likely, but a bad outcome is also likely, that is
a risk, and you need to determine if the benefits of the good outcome
are worth the risks of the bad outcome.
2. Risk is a combination of the likelihood of something happening, and
how good or bad the consequences of it are. The highest risk is a bad
outcome that is very likely. The lowest risk is a good outcome that is
very likely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO IMPROVE
1. Truth
* It hurts our pride when we’re proven wrong. We need a supportive
environment, where we know that the people who correct us are doing so to
help us, because they care about us. We can ask those people to do so in a
kinder way, by telling them what words and approaches to use and avoid.
* It can be difficult to put in the effort to learn new things. Try to
find ways to learn things, that you enjoy. It’s OK to only learn a small
bit at a time.
* Sometimes we need to limit what topics we learn about, so we should
prepare ourselves to be ready for difficult topics.
* Learn and practice logic. It doesn’t have to be mathematical, it can be
logic puzzles. Ask people to help you with making decisions, and pay
attention when they explain their logic.
* Learn and practice emotional intelligence. Get this information from
psychology, and think about the emotions you feel. Ask yourself why you
feel those emotions, what caused them, and if you’re OK with having felt
them in those situations. It’s possible to change what triggers your
emotions, and there is a method you can learn to do that. It won’t be
something you can do immediately. Also ask other people about how and when
they feel emotions, particularly in response to things you do. Understand
the emotional impact that your actions and the actions of others have, and
question them to see what you can improve in your emotional triggers, the
intensity and duration of your emotions, and how you can improve the
emotions you elicit in others.
* Ask yourself what you truly want. Look at the things you think you want,
and ask yourself how much they truly matter to you. Think about yourself
at the end of you life, and ask yourself what sort of lives you would be
truly satisfied and happy with, and which things you would regret doing or
not doing.
* Lying is tempting, especially in most societies, where lying is taught as
a good thing to do. Lying to yourself gives you temporary good feelings,
but it’s always at a greater cost to you.
* Avoid dogma at all costs. When you dogmatically believe things, those
things can be true, but dogma allows you to believe anything, even
falsehoods. Dogma, by definition, has no checks to make sure the beliefs
are true. Reason does have such checks, which means that if you do the
work, you can be confident that what you believe is true.
* Think about everything you believe to be true. One by one, think about
how they might be false. If they can survive scrutiny of reason and
evidence, they’re probably true.
* If someone questions your beliefs, take that seriously, and doubt those
beliefs. If those beliefs have evidence and are reasonable that satisfy
those doubts, you can be satisfied that they are true. If another doubt
comes up, that can be dealt with later.
* Dogma is tempting because it’s easier; you don’t have to spend time and
effort doing research, reasoning, or generally thinking about it. You
also don’t have to go through the anxiety, stress, or fear that might
come with temporarily not having a strong foundation of beliefs to rely
on. But dogma forces a fake sense of confidence in your beliefs, with no
justification for it. For you to be confident in your dogma, you have to
be in denial. As soon as you realise that dogmatic beliefs can easily be
false, and you have no way to know it, your confidence crumbles because
it was never justified. Dogma can only exist in ignorance or denial,
which are unhealthy, and do more harm in the long term.
2. Free Will
* It is often extremely hard to resist urges and temptations, to the point
that it feels impossible. See a psychological professional if it feels
that way, or talk to your close friends about it. See how others deal with
it, and when you feel comfortable, read the Stoics’ advice on how to
resist.
* It can be frustrating to see other people making mistakes, especially when
you could’ve prevented them, and they wouldn’t listen. Remember that you
will hurt them if you deny their autonomy, and sometimes you will hurt
them more than it helps. This can happen even if you’re confident that it
was the best choice. When this happens, try to forgive yourself.
* Making decisions can be very hard. Get help from others to learn the
reasoning (logic and emotional intelligence) that is involved in making
good decisions. It’s OK to be scared or anxious or frustrated by the
process, but once you get it, it will often be fun. This is what strategy
games rely on.
3. Ethics
* Some people avoid helping others because they cannot handle the stress.
This happens to everyone, so there is no shame in it.
* We should make sure that we only avoid helping people when it truly
harms us more than it helps them.
* We should try to improve our lives so it’s easier to help people.
* Some people hate or hurt others as a coping mechanism to feel better. This
is understandable, and might be the only way for them to stay sane, so
they might need to continue doing it even if it’s bad. They deserve to be
helped.
* Sometimes we have to do something bad to avoid something worse. It’s
tempting to tell ourselves that because it was justified, we have no
reason to feel bad. It’s tempting to stop feeling bad, but, the pain is
necessary, and stopping the pain too early leads us to make mistakes. It’s
tempting to tell ourselves that we did nothing wrong by killing someone,
but this is denial. It’s tempting to ask what’s wrong with denial, since
it avoids pain we don’t need to feel. But we do need to feel it. Lying to
ourselves means disrespecting ourselves, and it means we have lost control
to our pain. It also means we will never be able to process what we did,
so it will always haunt us, so we will feel that pain forever, and have to
resort to denial every time. That leads to higher stress, and eventually
madness. The pain we feel from processing it is necessary and good because
it leads us to be happy after we have processed it. Would you rather be
happy and without pain, or would you rather be stuck in a loop of
short-sighted guilt and denial, forever?
* It’s tempting to tell ourselves that we don’t need to do something. It can
be hard to do the right thing, especially when it’s at our own expense.
But we already know it’s the right thing, so it’s our own opinion that we
should do it. The only thing in the way are impulses that act against what
we really want, impulses that we never chose to have. I know what I must
do, and something is compelling me not to do it, and that is wrong. I know
that it’s wrong, because I know that the results of doing it are much
better than not doing it. The seratonin I get from not doing it is like
someone giving me money to let them commit crimes. If you truly hold
beliefs about what is right and wrong, and how the world should be, stick
to them. It’s hard, but you can learn to do them, and it becomes a habit.
Ask for others to help you, as it’s a lot easier when others expect you to
do it.
4. Feelings
* Emotions can overwhelm us. It’s normal to feel overwhelmingly happy, sad,
angry, or anything else, and there’s no shame in it. At the same time, I
have to remember that if I lose control, my emotions can do damage and
I’ll not be able to stop them. It’s possible to live intensely while still
being in control, and as long as I don’t lose sight of that, I can get
help to take a step back and look at the effects of my actions before I do
harm.
* Try to be considerate of what others feel. A lot of people have trouble,
or even cannot understand what others are feeling. That is why we should
never assume that someone is refusing to consider our emotions. It is
wiser to assume that someone is incompetent rather than malicious.
* Love is difficult. We have no way to know for sure if what we’re feeling
is love, or something else. The best way to address this is to take time
and think about what we feel, and rule out if it’s lust, obsession,
infatuation, or something else. Love is scary, but trust this: I have
suffered excruciating pain due to love, but it was always worth it rather
than never feeling love at all. Love fills our lives with joy and meaning
beyond almost anything that a loveless life can offer. Fear is
understandable, but missing out on love is almost always a terrible
mistake that we will regret, unless we live in denial.
* Love is worth the pain. If you cannot handle the pain, seek help.
* Be extremely careful: love is a permanent bond, no matter how much one
tries to deny it. Sometimes it’s OK to change relationships, but trying
to break this bond as if it doesn’t matter will do immeasurable amounts
of harm to everyone involved. Your happiness matters, but so does other
people’s. Work on it together, whether you want to stay with them or
leave. Always work on it, and never make unilateral decisions. This can
be very hard, and you might need to set ultimatums, but you must warn
people before it’s too late. You must be honest and never hide what you
feel from them, otherwise you will do far more harm than you might
realise. Denial is not a justified reaction to this.
* We all feel unbearable urges to seek pleasure, or avoid pain. There is no
shame in this. At the same time, doing this leads us away from what we
truly want, because our urges are subconscious and have no regard for what
we truly want. That’s why we sometimes get harmful urges.
* If we follow these urges and have a worse life, we will either regret
having obeyed our impulses, or we will go into denial to avoid dealing
with the pain of regret. That denial makes us continue to make poor
choices, ruining our lives even more, in exchange for temporary bouts of
pleasure that inevitably fade away. This is not sustainable, and will
fail, forcing us to face our terrible situation. I can avoid this by
getting help now, before I make mistakes.
Other:
1. People
* When we feel bad, we seek a way to feel better. It’s tempting to take it
out on someone else, but we know that that’s wrong, because all human
beings are equally deserving of happiness. Therefore, our subconscious
comes up with a loophole: if we treat this person as less than human, then
they no longer deserve to be treated well, so we think we are justified in
treating them badly. In reality this is just an excuse to let out our
negative emotions onto someone else. It’s a coping mechanism that is
selfish, and requires denial to do. If you’ve ever had someone shout at
you, or take out their anger on you, you know how wrong this is, and how
much you don’t want people to do this. Then you must admit it’s wrong, so
to stop it from happening, you must stop doing it. When we want others to
disarm, naturally we must be the first to do so.
2. Living Things
* It’s tempting to treat less complex living things as expendable. We kill
germs when we wash our hands, we step on insects by accident. But to
justify killing and harming based on these things is not reasonable, it’s
just our subconscious trying to come up with justifications because it
doesn’t want to go through the effort of being considerate and consistent
with our beliefs. It’s easier to just stop thinking about it, so we stop
worrying about it. But the worry is justified, in the same way (but to a
lesser extent) as worrying about your loved ones is justified. The choice
is between a convenient lie, or actually sticking to what you believe in.
* Killing germs is justified because the hygiene risk is too high not to. We
should not feel bad every time we wash our hands, but we should not
dismiss life simply because it is inconvenient to us.
3. Extremes
* Extremes are tempting because they’re easy. If you find yourself opting
for them, remember that you can only justify this to yourself with denial.
Force yourself to really look at your options, and give them a fair chance
without disregarding them.
4. Trust:
* Sometimes people lie to take advantage of us. When someone says something
you think might be false, consider if they truly believe it, or if they
want to deceive you. Deception is bad of course, so we should be wary.
What we should do depends on the consequences of trusting or not trusting
them. Consider how much harm is done if they lied and you believed it, and
compare that to the harm to them when they know that you don’t trust them.
* For example, if someone asks you for money to get to their job training,
consider what happens if you do or do not believe them. If they’re lying
and you trust them, you lose money, but now you know that this person is
deceptive. If they’re telling the truth and you don’t believe them, they
wasted their money on job training they cannot get to, they fail to get
that job, and they feel abandoned by you when they needed you.
* Sometimes you need that money more than your friend does. If you give
them that money, you might not be able to pay for rent or food, and you
will be homeless and starving, whereas your friend would have still had
a home and food even if they didn’t get a job. In that case, you should
keep the money, but that doesn’t mean you have to mistrust your friend.
* If giving them money makes you suffer, but less than they would suffer
without the money, then it’s worth the risk. When my friend asks me for
money, I know the worst case scenarios are that they can’t get a job
they invested money into, or that I lose some money. It’s better to be
lied to and lose money, than to abandon your friends when they need to.
It’s worth the risk. You don’t have to give them things you can’t afford
to give, but you shouldn’t mistrust them.
* When we trust others, we give them reason to trust us. It’s OK to be lied
to. Build trust even if you suffer from it, because by trusting others,
you are showing them how to be, and you are giving them a form of love.
Trusting others makes the world a better place.
5. Responsibility
* Remember that it makes no sense to blame someone for something they can’t
control. It might make you feel better, but that’s selfishly stealing
their well-being for yourself. Making them feel bad so that you can feel
good means that there’s still someone feeling bad, so you’ve not made
things better, you’ve done a bad thing to someone and there’s still the
same amount of harm in the world. If you can’t handle it, try taking it
out in a way that doesn’t hurt anyone else. Try talking to someone about
what bothers you, or try hitting a pillow. If you can, seek therapy. If
you blame them, you will only feel better temporarily, but you will carry
with you a bit of that rage, and the subconscious guilt of knowing you’ve
hurt others. That will forever stay with you and manifest as worse mental
illness.
6. Awareness:
1. Make a conscious effort to focus on each of your senses. Slowly analyse
all the sensory input you are receiving. Identify everything in your
field of view, note their colour and form, note what they’re doing, look
for details that might or might not have importance. Then do the same
while looking around you, to get a full understanding of your
surroundings. Don’t forget to look up and down as well, and take note of
the things you cannot see. Analogously do this for your other senses.
This is scanning your environment. Ask yourself what conclusions you can
make given this information. Ask yourself if it a safe neighbourhood,
where you can go, where you can’t go, and how you feel about it.
7. Consequences
1. Acting without thinking is how most mistakes are made, and mistakes
generally do harm. If you have grown up in this way, then it is likely
you will find the idea of thinking before you act to be quite difficult
or draining. Stopping to think before every action we make requires
effort, so it is uncomfortable. If so, then ask yourself: is the comfort
of not thinking worth the risk of harming myself and others? It’s easy to
tell ourselves that it’s worked so far, so there’s no need to change how
we act, but this assumes that we’ve been aware of the consequences of our
actions. If we have not paid attention to (or ignored) the outcomes of
what we’ve done, then it’s easy to not be aware of the harm that our
decisions have caused.
2. For example, I could splash water on the floor while using the bathroom,
and then leave, not thinking about what might happen as a result. Someone
else might not like stepping in the water, or they might slip, but I
neither tried to predict this, nor was I there to see if it affected
anyone. I know I splashed some water, but I am so used to it that I did
pay attention to how much water was spilled, and the splashed water has
become normal and not noteworthy to me. If asked, I would say that I see
no reason why anyone would be bothered by water on the floor, especially
since it does not bother me. I have upset or disgusted someone, and I did
not know it, even if I insist that no one will be bothered by it.
3. We can’t predict every negative consequence of our actions, because we
don’t know everything that can happen, nor do we know everything that
other people dislike. We don’t have the time to observe the consequences
of everything we do. Therefore, we have to rely on what other people tell
us. All we can do is our due diligence in trying to predict negative
consequences, asking questions, and observing when we can. For example,
if you’re making food for someone, consider if the ingredients can be an
allergy risk, ask them if they’re allergic to anything, and be with them
for a minute after they’ve eaten it. You might not know that certain
foods could be allergic, the person might not know if they have an
allergy, and you can’t reasonably stay with them for hours after they’ve
eaten it.
4. Do what you can, so consider what you can reasonably do. It’s considerate
to give someone a gift, but it’s also inconsiderate to not ask if they
want it first. Sometimes people will not be reasonable, such as a child
who refuses to get a vaccine injection. We should ask them, but we should
also make them aware that the consequences of not getting the vaccine are
worse than the consequences of getting it. If I feel bad for forcing my
child to get a vaccine, I should consider the consequences of risking
their health just to respect their autonomy and feelings now.
TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS HOW AWESOME THIS IS :D:
* Twitter
* Facebook
* Email
* Print
* LinkedIn
* Reddit
* Tumblr
* Pinterest
* Pocket
*
Like Loading...
DON’T DOUBT ME
Posted by slizer88 on July 2, 2024
Posted in: philosophy. Tagged: advice, authority, doubt, help, questioning,
relationship, respect, self, trust. Leave a comment
I am not my beliefs. Therefore if some of my beliefs are wrong, that does not
mean that I am wrong. I cannot –be- wrong, but I can hold wrong beliefs. I
should let go of those beliefs in exchange for ones that are proven to be true.
I should never be ashamed for having believed something wrong.
We can trust people while still doubting them.
Doubt can hurt if we do not do it properly, but if we do not doubt, we live in
denial, and that hurts us far more.
I Don’t Want to Question Things
To not engage in philosophy is to not question. When we do this, we take the
information we are given, and we follow it. We are told as children that things
work a certain way, and we believe it. We study, get a job, and enjoy life. This
is not unethical, and no one should feel ashamed for doing this. At the same
time, this harms us. Not questioning things means that everything stays the
same. If you look at your personal world and think nothing should be better,
then don’t question anything. If you look at the whole world and think it’s fine
as it is, with all the suffering and injustice, then do not question anything.
Such people persuade themselves that things cannot improve, because that is far
easier than trying to change things. Change often requires one to suffer, and it
takes a lot of time and effort. It might require many failures, to the point of
wanting to give up, and therefore persuading yourself that things are hopeless.
But this is how it has always been. This is how it was when any group or
individual fought for a better life.
It was so difficult for slaves that other people had to free them. It was so
difficult for women that they had to campaign for decades, and some had to die,
just to have basic rights. African-Americans continued to be mistreated despite
gaining rights. Minorities and majorities alike suffer have suffered until
things changed. History is full of change; for any group that has rights now, we
can look back at what changed to give them those rights. Change is demonstrably
possible. A child being abused may not have any options they can take to improve
their own situation, but things can still change. Someone else can help them,
even if this is little consolation for them. We can’t say that every child
should expect to be saved, some won’t be, and that is a tragedy that we should
care about. If they deserve a better life, and they cannot help themselves, then
someone else has to. Those that can help, should help. For everyone who cannot
help themselves, it is our duty to help them.
If we don’t question, we don’t change. We get stuck with whatever we were given,
so if anything we got wasn’t right, we’re stuck being wrong until we question
it. Our parents and society give us the information and care that forms our
understanding of reality. Our parents and society get plenty of things wrong,
therefore we should not have blind faith in them, unless we want to get things
wrong and make mistakes that hurt us.
To not question is to be wrong, and do wrong things. Human beings naturally feel
bad when we are proven wrong, so we naturally get angry in response, and we try
to avoid any situation where we’re proven wrong. This leads to denial, which can
help in the short-term, but hurts us immensely over time, even if we don’t
realise it. Denial is when we don’t realise that we’re lying to ourselves. If we
don’t realise it, that means we don’t know when it’s happening. That means that
no one can be sure that they’re not in denial. We need someone else to prove
that we’re in denial. It’s possible to realise we’ve been lying to ourselves,
but there’s no assurance of this, since our subconscious is already altering how
we think.
Confidence, especially being confident that we know we’re right, is possibly the
worst and most dangerous thing that exists. Christianity called it “pride”, and
in some religions it is the greatest sin. Confidence stops us from realising we
are wrong. Confidence inhibits us, keeping us the same as we were. Confidence
makes sure that we retain our problems, so it makes sure that we continue to
suffer.
That means that our lives will be better if we question things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Want to Question Things
A lack of confidence can result in not being sure of anything. It can make us
question things that are true. How do we avoid being crippled by a lack of
confidence?
We should question everything because when we start out, we have no idea which
of the things we know are true, and which are false.But questioning everything
does not mean that we believe nothing; it means that we question everything
-only- when we have good reason to. We usually have no reason to question if the
sky is really blue, but a scientist has reason to question it. Once they have an
answer to their question, they stop.
This is how to question everything:
1. Wait until you have a reason to question things.
2. Prepare yourself for the doubt involved.
1. If you’re doubting something very important and useful to you, make sure
you can survive whilst you no longer have this information to base
decisions on.
2. For example, if you’re doubting what job you want to have, it’s important
to do it as soon as possible so you don’t waste time studying for or
joining a job you won’t like. But at the same time, you don’t want to
doubt it while you need the continue that job because you need the money.
Prepare yourself so you can doubt it in peace.
3. Consider all the evidence equally, to give you question a fair chance to be
answered.
1. Bias can give you an appealing, but untrue conclusion. If you don’t like
someone, it’s easy to brand them as untrustworthy, so you simply don’t
believe anything they say.
2. All evidence for or against something should be treated the same way,
because the truth is a purifying light that burns away falsehoods,
leaving only truth. Falsehoods cannot survive the rigours of proper
questioning. When you ask the hard questions, and you demand proof and
thorough reasoning, only the truth survives this process. If you do not
ask enough questions, you might be left with a seeming truth that is
actually false. This is a difficult process that not everyone is ready
for.
4. Do not question it again unless you have a reason to.
1. If new evidence comes to light, compare it to your previous analysis, and
be open to having been wrong.
2. If you belief leads to poor results, review it, but don’t have a specific
intent in mind. If you question something because you subconsciously want
a reason to stop believing it, you will give yourself a bias that will
probably lead to a false conclusion, but you will believe it regardless.
In summary:
* Reaching the truth is painful, but living with the truth makes us happy.
* Accepting a lie is comforting, but living with a lie makes us sad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we do it wrong, doubt can lead to “analysis paralysis” (which is a terrible
phrase). We are naturally afraid of doubt because it makes us anxious, nervous,
insecure, and stops us from acting.
When we doubt properly, we get answers that improve our lives. We have to be
ready to doubt, psychologically and philosophically, otherwise it will cause
undue pain that might prevent us from trying. But we also must eventually doubt,
otherwise we will live in denial, which hurts us.
Doubt is necessary, and it is good when it is done properly
TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS HOW AWESOME THIS IS :D:
* Twitter
* Facebook
* Email
* Print
* LinkedIn
* Reddit
* Tumblr
* Pinterest
* Pocket
*
Like Loading...
TREAT ALL PEOPLE AS ENDS; SELFISHNESS AND SACRIFICE
Posted by slizer88 on June 29, 2024
Posted in: philosophy. Tagged: hero, philosophy, sacrifice, self interest,
selfinterest, selfish, trauma. 1 Comment
People
The fundamental essence of a person is something we should always value. Never
treat people as a means to an end; always treat people as the ends to which our
actions aim towards. Don’t use people for our own gain; do things to help
people. Don’t be with people only because they offer something we want, like
pleasure or security; be with them because we care about them too.
And in all of this, remember that we are one of those people, so we should care
about ourselves as much as we care about everyone else, not more, and not less.
My happiness is not more important than your happiness. Your happiness is not
more important than my happiness.
It’s OK to sacrifice for someone else’s benefit, when they need it more than we
do. It’s OK to get more than someone else gets, if we need it more than they do.
Selfishness and excessive sacrifice are toxic; they are a poison that
disrespects people; they are theft and assault; they say that one person is more
important than another; they are inequality, and create a cycle of pain and
violence.
People don’t deserve things just because they worked for it, they deserve things
because human beings deserve things. We deserve to be happy, and to not suffer.
We deserve to be loved, and to not be hurt. It’s terrible when we don’t get
those things we deserve.
Those Who Can Help, and Those Who Need Help
People should look out for us, and we should look out for them. If no one looks
out for us, we might have no choice but to do something bad to look out for
ourselves. If we don’t look out for others, we’re creating the situation where
they have to do bad things to look out for themselves. Not everyone is able to
help, they are the ones who need help. So those who can help, should reach out
to help. Those who need help, should ask.
If you don’t know how explain what sort of help you need, try to work with them.
If you don’t know how to help someone, ask them. If neither of you know, think
of options. If you can’t, seek help from someone or somewhere else. Communicate;
seek outside help; reevaluate, and make sure that you both understand that you
want to help.
Those Who Can’t Help
People deserve to be happy. People in need deserve to be helped. If we can’t
help, we don’t have to try. But we shouldn’t give up on people just because it’s
inconvenient to us. If we help someone, do it because they need help, not
because it’s convenient for us. If we care about someone, do it because of who
they are, not because of what they’ve done. People do terrible things for many
reasons, but people are great when their kindness is fostered. Plenty of people
will not appreciate our help, and may even abuse it. We’re not obliged to suffer
to help everyone we meet. Our well being matters just as much as theirs, but it
doesn’t matter more. We’re all human beings, and any attempt to say otherwise is
just an excuse to cope. If we have good reason not to help someone, we shouldn’t
help them, but that doesn’t change that they deserve love and care and help.
If we want help, help others. If we want to be loved, love. If we don’t want to
suffer, don’t make others suffer. If we don’t want to be hated, don’t hate. If
we’re not able to do that, then we might have greater need than them, and we
deserve to be helped, so that we will be in a position to help, and love, and
not make others suffer, and not hate. We deserve help, and so does everyone
else.
If the only way for us to avoid a breakdown is to hate someone, then we might
have no choice, but accept this for what it is: a temporary coping mechanism.
There’s no shame in needing help, and there’s no shame in coping until we get
help. It’s necessary and we should do it without shame, but that doesn’t change
that it’s problematic and toxic. Do what we have to do to survive, but never
forget that we deserve to survive because we matter, just like everyone else
does. Survive so that we can get better, so that we can stop hating and hurting
others.
Selfishness
Selfishness leads to getting better, but it’s not worth the damage it does. We
can look out for ourselves, and even take from others, without being selfish. If
we need food more than someone else, we can take their food without being
selfish. Being selfish is when we do not see a problem with taking from others.
The better way is to always choose the path that does the least damage to
ourselves and others. Sometimes that means doing things that are bad, to avoid
things that are worse. What we should never do is try to deny that we’re doing
something bad, because this does harm to our minds and to other people.
Selflessness
Being too selfless means sacrificing too much of what you have to help others,
and suffering needlessly. This is like being selfish, but the one who suffers is
you, not someone else. Since you matter just as much as everyone else, this is
wrong, even if it is more noble. This is not the same as a reasonable sacrifice,
when someone else needs something more than you do.
Conclusion
A world where we only care about ourselves is not a good world. That is a world
that should be changed, because it there is a better way. Our world has plenty
of selfishness and selflessness. We should be trying to convince people to stop
being selfish, and that’s done by preventing the situations that make people
selfish. People become selfish when they have to take to survive; they become
selfish when no one helps them. Help others, and we make the world less selfish.
Everyone we know who hurts people, is someone who was hurt (unless they are that
way because of a mental condition beyond anyone’s control). When we hurt someone
for any reason, they become the one in need of protection, which pushes them to
hurt others. Cut the chain. End the cycle.
If you’re not in a position where you can stop hurting people, then I hope you
find the help you need. I hope you get to a place where you’re helped and can
help, because you deserve it, and so do they.
TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS HOW AWESOME THIS IS :D:
* Twitter
* Facebook
* Email
* Print
* LinkedIn
* Reddit
* Tumblr
* Pinterest
* Pocket
*
Like Loading...
HOW TO AVOID MISUNDERSTANDINGS
Posted by slizer88 on June 27, 2024
Posted in: philosophy. Tagged: advice, help, life, philosophy, self, self-help.
Leave a comment
For probably fifteen years, I thought that the phrase was “for all intensive
purposes”. I had said it, written it, and that was what I interpreted when I
heard other people say the phrase. I was in my mid-twenties when finally one of
the times I wrote it down prompted someone to ask if I meant “for all intents
and purposes”. I was shocked that I had misinterpreted it for so many years. I
didn’t understand how I could have used it with so many different people,
without any of them correcting me, or possibly even noticing. How could I have
misheard it so many times during my life? How could I have never seen it written
correctly? The probability of me using it wrongly, and never noticing, seemed
very low. How could something work if it’s wrong?
I had an intuitive understanding of what the phrase meant, that I got from
hearing it in context. The meaning and phrasing I got seemed to be correct. I
used it and heard it, and every time it seemed to prove me right. The more it
happened, the more confident I was that I was right.
Let’s take the very word, “understanding”. It’s is a common word that we all
will likely think we fully know the meaning of. We’ve used it and heard it many
times. But what if we misunderstood what “understanding” is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How We Learn Words
Most of the words we learn are defined through context, rather than formal
explanations. This works well enough for most words in most situations, but
“good enough” is imperfect. The imperfection in this case is that context is
often ambiguous, meaning that there is more than one way to understand it. In
many cases, this leads to two things:
1. I think I know what the word means, because the definition I interpreted
fits into the context I heard it used in. That is proof that my definition
is correct.
2. I do not think that any other interpretation exists, or if it does, I have
chosen the far more likely option.
Of course, it is possible that I have thought about different interpretations of
what the word means, and I consider each one to be a reasonable option. However,
I have found that in general most people disregard this approach, refusing to
believe that any other interpretation is possible, and when they are told of
such an interpretation, they disregard it as unreasonable. I believe this is how
most people interpret new words, because they are so used to thinking they
understood something quickly. The idea that they need to take more time to
understand something seems pointless, because they think they’ve been doing fine
so far, so they have no need to change.
Also, the idea that they are missing out on viable alternate interpretations
threatens the way they think. If they accept that they missed an interpretation
now, then it that opens the possibility that they have missed interpretations
before, meaning that they might have misunderstood any number of words that they
think they know. Not knowing which of your beliefs are true or false is a scary
prospect, and so it is natural for the subconscious to deny this in favour of
the easier and less stressful view that they have been doing everything
correctly, so they have nothing to worry about.
Denial of Misinterpretation
This sort of denial is something that no one can know they are doing. How could
you possibly know you’ve lied to yourself? If you did know you lied to yourself,
then you didn’t do a very good job of lying to yourself. If you really lied to
yourself, you will truly believe the lie. That means that any of us might have
lied to ourselves, and we would have no way to be certain of whether this is
true, or what the lie was. The point of a lie is that it looks the same as a
truth, so we will have no idea what we lied to ourselves about.
This means that if you even suggest that I could be mistaken about what a word
means, I will be confident that I’m not mistaken. I might even flat out reject
the possibility of being wrong, and blame you for offending me. Of course, I
have reasoning behind my confidence: I heard the word being used in context, my
definition matches that context without issue, and I have since used it
successfully many times. But I don’t remember every time I’ve used the word.
What if I used the word once, and someone expressed confusion (then said
“nevermind”)? What if another time I used the word, and someone’s response
didn’t match my interpretation?
* For example, let’s say that I said “I don’t understand how a microwave
works”, and what I was tying to convey was that I do not know how to operate
it. Let’s say that the person I was talking to instead thinks that I meant
that I do not know what happens inside a microwave to generate heat (how they
magnets work, what the physics of microwaves consists of).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding “Understanding”
The problem in the previous example is that I think that the word “understand”
is the same as “to know”, whereas my friend thinks it means something else.
So when I say “I don’t understand how a microwave works”, I’m saying that I do
not know what to do with it. If you speak to me in a language I do not speak, I
might say “I do not understand what you’re saying”, or I might say “I do not
know what you’re saying”, and those two things mean the same thing to me.
Meanwhile, the other person thinks that “understand” means a having thorough
knowledge. So when I say “I don’t understand how a microwave works”, they think
I mean that I do not have thorough knowledge of the mechanisms that allow a
microwave to work, and they think I’m implying that I -do- have basic knowledge
of microwaves. So If they speak to me in a language I do not speak, and I tell
them “I do not understand”, they will think that I know the words they’re using,
and I know the meaning of the words, but I do not have a complete understanding
of them. If instead I say “I do not know what you’re saying”, they will probably
think I mean that I do not speak that language, and I have no clue what they’re
saying.
The result is that if I use the word “understand”, the other person might think
I know what they’re saying, and refusing to acknowledge it. They might think I’m
insisting that they explain details I don’t need, whereas I have no idea what
they’re talking about, and I am simply trying to grasp onto the general idea of
what they mean.
How did my friend and I interpret this word differently? Quite simply: when you
see someone use the word “understand”, trying to figure it out its definition by
context is ambiguous. That means that both interpretations work in context, so
neither of us made a mistake. The problem is that the context gave insufficient
information to determine which interpretation was correct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example to Demonstrate
Let’s invent a new word:”pament”.
First example:
> “John hates me for always showing up late. I don’t pament him.”
* What does “pament” mean? You might have an answer right now, but let’s
consider several options for what it might mean:
* Blame- “I don’t [blame] him, he has good reason to hate me.”
* Understand- “I don’t [understand] him, that’s such a strange reason to hate
me.”
* Like- “I don’t [like] him, that’s such a childish reason to hate me”
A second example might help:
> I say “I told John what I think. He doesn’t understand why I don’t pament
> him.”
* Does this change our options for what “pament” means?
* Blame- “John does not understand why I don’t [blame] him for hating me. He
thinks that no one likes to be hated, so the normal thing to do is to hate
the other person back.”
* Understand- “John doesn’t see how I can’t [understand]. He thinks it’s
normal to hate someone that’s always late.”
* Like- “John doesn’t understand why I don’t [like] him. He thinks I have no
right to dislike him, since I’m the one who wronged him.”
* No matter what option we pick, they still work in the context of either
example. This means that we will be confident that we know what “pament”
means, since it’s proven to fit.
Let’s instead take someone else’s use of the word.
> John says “You should try to pament the people who helped you.”
* Does this change our options for what “pament” means?
* Blame- “You should try to [blame] the people who helped you” (This is
unreasonable, so we can eliminate “blame”)
* Understand- “You should try to [understand] the people who helped you.”
(Reasonable)
* Like- “You should try to [like] the people who helped you.” (Reasonable)
With context from another person, about another situation, we have ruled out one
option as unreasonable (unless John is very strange). However, we still have two
viable options. Does “pament” mean “understand”, or does it mean “like”? Both
are positive, but they do not mean the same thing.
Is it OK to use the word “pament” without knowing what it means? We will
certainly be giving people the wrong idea, so we will be miscommunicating. Do we
want people to think we like someone, when we mean we understand them? Let’s say
that I understand a bad person, but I disagree with them. If I say I pament this
bad person, people might think I like the bad person, and that would be a
terrible misunderstanding.
Humans have a natural tendency to fear being wrong. So even with the above
examples demonstrating how we can be wrong, we might still object.
* If I think that “pament” means “like”, then those three examples of context
would reinforce my view. That means I will trust that I know the real meaning
of “pament”. How many people are likely to do this?
* Most people don’t bother to correct others, and many people simply won’t know
if I’m using it correctly. How many times will I use this word before someone
points out I’m using the wrong interpretation?
* If I got the wrong interpretation, it’s still easy to hear it many times and
simply misunderstand what others mean. If I never use the word, no one’s
going to know that I misunderstood it. How many times will I only hear others
using it?
* How many times will I hear someone else using this word, before I hear a
context that doesn’t fit with my interpretation? When this happens, will I
doubt my interpretation, or will I just think that they got it wrong?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misunderstanding
The more often you use or hear a word, without any indication that you
misunderstood it, you more confident you will be that your interpretation was
correct. After all, how could I be wrong about something I’ve believed for so
long? How could a mistake go for so long without being corrected? The fact is
that the amount of time that’s gone by has no bearing on whether or not
something is true. It is entirely possible for something to work by fluke, many
times over, and this happens all the time. Also, just because something hasn’t
failed doesn’t mean it’s right. Plenty of things survive even though they are
worse than their alternatives. If you believe that something -cannot- survive
unless it’s earned it, you have fallen for the fallacy of survival of the
fittest.
I have seen myself and others have the wrong interpretation of what something
means many times. One example is misheard phrases; this is so common that it has
a name, “mondegreens”. This is what “for all intensive purposes” is.
Analogously, it’s possible to misunderstand the meaning of a word, so long as
what you misunderstood doesn’t -happen- to cause any contradictions that you
can’t ignore.
I can ignore a contradiction if:
* I think that they’re using it wrong, or
* I think I can’t be wrong, or
* I don’t care about it.
Eventually I might be so confident in myself, or so incapable of handling being
wrong, that I put myself into denial, and tell myself that it’s everyone else
who’s wrong. This is what happens with the Mandela effect, where people trust
their own memory even if everyone else in the world disagrees, to the point
where they would rather think that all of reality is wrong, rather than
considering that their memory might be wrong.
In most cases, a contradiction never comes up, or if it does, it’s not important
enough that one must think about it. In other cases, it takes many years for a
contradiction that makes us reconsider our views. And so, we all believe things
that aren’t true, even if we think that it’s impossible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True but Misunderstood
To reliably come to a true conclusion, we need true facts to work off of, and
sound reasoning to process those facts. However, our misunderstandings also have
evidence that supports them, and also have reasoning that follows from that
evidence. That means that understanding and misunderstanding appear the same to
us until we receive more information that can differentiate them.
Example:
* Consider this situation, as told by Adam without lying:
* I told John not to leave his dirty plates out.
* John left his dirty plates out.
* Therefore, John has not done what I asked.
* Adam has not lied, and the reasoning is sound, so the conclusion seems
obvious, and John should be blamed for not doing what he was asked to do.
* Now consider John’s perspective, who is also not lying:
* Adam told me not to leave my dirty plates out.
* I made sure to clean my plates as soon as I used them.
* Adam has still blamed me for leaving my dirty plates out.
* John has not lied, and his reasoning is sound, so he does not understand
why he has been blamed for not doing what he was asked to do.
Adam and John’s stories contradict each other, but we know that neither is
lying. How can this be?
* The answer is that Adam and John are talking about the same situation in
different terms.
* John understood the problem as the plates being 1. dirty, and 2. at the
dinner table (“left out”). Therefore, his solution was to 1. not leave the
plates on the table, and 2. clean the plates immediately after using them.
Because of John’s understanding, he thought he solved the problem.
* Adam’s understanding of the problem was that the plates were in his way
when he wanted to eat at the dinner table. Therefore, his desired solution
was for the plates to be stored and out of his way. John left his plates
drying on a rack, which Adam considers to be in his way, since now he can’t
use the rack.
* The difference in understanding means that the problem was not solved.
* Another difference in understanding:
* Adam refers to the drying plates as “dirty plates”. The plates are clean,
not dirty.
* John understood that Adam has asked him to clean his plates, and John did.
* Adam understood that John has understood to keep his plates out of the way,
but John did not understand this.
How is this solved?
* Adam should not refer to clean plates as “dirty”.
* I tell John this, and he says “It doesn’t matter if they’re clean or not,
the point is that they’re in the way. It’s close enough. Everyone knows I
meant John’s plates.”
* Adam is wrong, and we have evidence to prove this: the only person who
needed to know what Adam meant is John, and John did not know what Adam
meant. Therefore, it’s not “close enough”, and not everyone knows that Adam
meant John’s plates.
* John’s interpretation was perfectly reasonable based on the information he
was given, even though it was incorrect.
* This misunderstanding could have easily been avoided if Adam had used more
precise wording.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is Understanding?
Situations like this can make us think that it’s obvious that we are right. The
difference between a reasonable misunderstanding and a true conclusion might be
that all our evidence was true, but there might be more relevant information
that we didn’t have. Not all relevant information is necessary to understand
something, so we have to determine what information is necessary. This requires
us to question the information we have, and look through all reasonably
obtainable information.
* For example, let’s say that I ask you to babysit for me. I tell you that food
will be left ready in the oven, to put the baby to sleep at 10PM, the baby is
named Steve, the baby is 3 years old, no allergies, any peculiarities you
have to account for, etc.
* When you arrive to babysit, I have left, and you see a massive dog with a
collar that has the name “Steve” on it. It turns out I refer to my dog as “my
baby”, and I feed it warm food and put it to bed at 10PM.
* You thought you understood the situation, because it was obvious. You had
plenty of information, and I didn’t lie to you or mislead you, but you had no
reason to think to ask for the baby’s species. Most people would assume I
meant a human baby, but at the same time, plenty of people with pets refer to
them as their “babies”.
If we don’t question what seems obvious, then we will miss out on anything
counterintuitive. There are plenty of things that are true, but are very
difficult to believe. Physics is full of such things, where our instincts and
life experiences tell us one thing, but the natural world tells us something
else.
* It’s obvious that a spacecraft will stop moving when their engines turn off,
and then to fall to earth if it is nearby.
* It’s obvious that light can’t be a physical particle, and an invisible wave.
* If a train is travelling at the speed of light, and you walk from the back to
the front of the train, it’s obvious that you are moving faster than light.
* It’s obvious that when you turn a bicycle’s handlebar to the right,. you will
move to the right.
* It’s obvious that if someone is depressed, they should just cheer up.
When we don’t consider that we could be wrong, things -seem- obvious based on
the evidence and reasoning we have -at the moment-. The fact is that we are
human, so we are imperfect. If we think that we can’t possibly lack information,
or if we think that our information cannot possibly be wrong, then we make the
mistake of thinking we are perfect.
What we need to see if we are wrong is more information. When we’re open to
being proven wrong, we allow ourselves to get new evidence from other people. So
what was obvious before becomes obviously wrong, and something else becomes
obvious.
However, the true issue here is thinking in terms of something being obvious.
Instead of insisting that a conclusion is obvious, we should try to look at
-what- makes it seem obvious. We should question our evidence, and listen to
others when they suggest that there might be an alternative. An open-minded
person does not insist they are right because it is obvious, instead they
discuss different options. To be open-minded means being open to alternatives.
Rejecting alternatives to what you believe is, by definition, closing your mind
off to different views. It is tempting to stick with what you know, especially
when you have evidence and reasoning, but the fact is that plenty of opposing
views also have those things, so that’s not enough. As difficult as it is, if we
want to be open-minded and if we care about the truth, we must be open to
considering arguments that contradict our own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knowing vs Understanding
I said before that I view “know” and “understand” as synonyms. Whether you just
have a shallow knowledge of something, or a deep understanding of it, I think
that either word can be used interchangeably. You can have a shallow
understanding of it, or you might know it deeply.
Lastly, let us consider the distinction of depth for a moment. When do we need
basic knowledge of a word or concept, and when do we need to know more?
* Let’s say that Adam says “I pament that Israel was created to give the Jewish
disapora a home”.
* If I have a shallow understanding of what “pament” means, then it sounds
like Adam approves of Israel invading Palestine.
* If I try to get a deeper understanding, then I will ask Adam if he “likes”
that Israel invaded Palestine, or if he “understands” that Israel invaded
Palestine.
* If Adam likes it, then Adam is likely a Zionist.
* If Adam understands it, then he is likely not a Zionist.
* Therefore in this case, a deeper understanding makes a huge difference.
* Let’s say that John asks me not to leave my dirty plates out.
* If I have a shallow understanding of this, I might leave my dirty plates in
the sink, because that is not “out”.
* If I have a deeper understanding of this, I would ask if John if the
problem is that he doesn’t want my plates on the table, if he doesn’t want
the dishes to be left dirty, or if he doesn’t want my plates outside of the
cabinets.
* If he doesn’t want plates on the table, I can leave them in the sink.
* If he doesn’t want them dirty, I can clean them.
* If he doesn’t want them in his way, I can clean and then store them.
Many people don’t see the value of having a deeper understanding of things. This
is sometimes because they don’t think it will make a difference.
* For example, consider if I’m being asked to babysit.
* If I have a shallow understanding, I might think I’m being asked to babysit
a human child, so I will agree.
* If you advise me to get a deeper understanding of what I’m being asked,
I’ll tell you that it won’t make a difference. The reason for this is that
all the information that I can imagine I would get, is information that I
assume is about a human baby. I would be imagining that a deeper
understanding would mean learning about the baby’s habits, allergies, or
special needs, and all of those things would be OK with me. From my
perspective, I would agree to babysit no matter how much I knew about the
baby, because I never considered it might not be human. Therefore, my
prejudice means that I don’t think a deeper understanding will change my
view, even though a deeper understanding will change my view.
Sometimes we accept that there are things we don’t know, but don’t think that
knowing more will help. This things are called “known unknowns”, which means
that there’s something we are not aware of, but we know the nature of it. The
opposite would be an “unknown unknown”, that is, there’s something we are not
aware of, and we do not know the nature of it. In the babysitting example, I
assumed that getting a deeper understanding would only lead to known unknowns,
and I knew that whatever they were, they wouldn’t matter. The reality was that a
deeper understanding would’ve led to unknown unknowns. I mistakenly thought I
knew the nature of the unknowns, and that is the reason I ended up surprised I
was stuck with a giant dog.
The lesson to learn from this example is that we should not assume what types of
unknowns there are unless we have a good reason to do so. Consequently, we
should almost never reject the option to learn more.
If I have an opinion based on shallow understanding, getting a deeper
understanding can change my opinion. If I say that I don’t need to understand
something, then I’m saying that I don’t want information that will change my
mind. Getting a better understanding is necessary because I don’t know if it
will matter or not. If more information -will- change my mind, then rejecting
that information is a form of avoidance and denial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misunderstanding can happen when I mishear, or when someone else misspeaks. They
can happen when I don’t have correct information, or when I haven’t reasoned
properly. They can happen even when I have accurate information and reasoning.
If I’m not given enough information, I need to look for more information,
otherwise I will be intentionally misunderstanding. If I think I have enough
information, but there is more to have, rejecting that information is inviting
misunderstanding.
* Let’s say I receive a letter in the post, and I think it might be the water
bill.
* If I don’t pay the bill, I won’t have running water in my house, and I want
running water.
* On the other hand, paying the bill causes me financial and mental stress.
* Do I open the letter?
* I am already dangerously stressed, so if the letter is indeed the water
bill, I might have a mental breakdown. or anxiety attack. On the other
hand, I will have enough time to pay the bill.
* If I do not open the letter, I won’t have to think about the water bill, so
I will avoid an anxiety attack. I will be less stressed for the time being,
but I might run out of time to pay the bill, losing water.
If I say “I know it’s a water bill, I don’t need to read it”, I won’t see that
it needs to be paid earlier than usual, and I won’t see that it’s more expensive
than I can currently afford. Not reading the letter will make me suffer.
Understandings requires accurate information. Rejecting information is actively
sabotaging your own happiness. When you get a letter, you can go through the
stress of reading it, or you can suffer by not reading it.
TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS HOW AWESOME THIS IS :D:
* Twitter
* Facebook
* Email
* Print
* LinkedIn
* Reddit
* Tumblr
* Pinterest
* Pocket
*
Like Loading...
DOUBT AND TRUST
Posted by slizer88 on June 24, 2024
Posted in: philosophy. Tagged: doubt, faith, help, philosophy, self, self-help,
selfhelp, truth. 2 Comments
WHAT IS DOUBT?
Is Doubt Good?
When someone makes a claim, it is normal, healthy, and respectful to have doubts
about their claim. Doubting their claim does -not- mean that you think it is
false. If you thought it was false, that would not be doubt, that would be
disbelief or mistrust. Doubt is when you are not certain, neither “yes” nor
“no”.
Sometimes people get offended when their claims are doubted, which raises the
question: if you do not like it when you are doubted, does that mean that no one
should ever doubt you? If you do not want others to ever doubt you, then you are
asking them to have blind faith in whatever you say, or to hide their doubts
from you.
If you want people to have blind faith in you, you are asking them to:
1. trust you will never lie under any circumstance
2. believe you even if they have proof you’re lying, and/or
3. trust that you are omniscient, so even if you never lie, you can never be
misinformed and everything you believe is always true.
In essence, if you ask someone to never doubt you, you would be asking them to
stop thinking for themselves, and instead to treat you as a perfect being that
knows better than them. This is not reasonable, so most people do not want this.
Then, the only remaining option is to learn how to not be offended by being
doubted. This might require therapy. It’s OK to react negatively when doubted,
but it’s also good to try to change that of your own free will.
Is Doubt Bad?
Once we have learned how to not be offended by others doubting us, there are
still potential issues that may arise. Even if we are OK with being doubted,
there are cases where doubt might be uncalled for, or might be detrimental to
communication. If someone urgently requires medicine to survive, doubting their
physician could endanger their life. We might doubt someone for the wrong
reasons, such as when someone dismisses claims as false simply due to the kind
of person the claim came from. It would be unreasonable to doubt someone’s
claims due to their gender, since gender has no bearing on whether or not
someone is telling the truth. Gender might have a bearing on what someone has
experienced and knows, but in most cases this is unlikely.
Doubt Is Neither Good Nor Bad
In these cases, it is not the act of doubting that is wrong, rather it is the
cause (and therefore the purpose) of the doubt. If I doubt someone because it is
an important matter that I need to be sure of, that is a practical reason to
doubt, because we will benefit from it. If I am told that I need to take a
medicine to survive an illness, then taking the wrong medicine could result in
death. Thus, it would be practical to doubt the physician telling me what
medicine I should take. It is possible for the physician to misspeak, or they
might not know that I am allergic to certain medicines, or they might have
mistaken my illness with someone else’s. Therefore, even if the physician gets
offended, I should still ask them if they are sure that they are giving me the
correct medicine, because the risk of not doing so is too high. This form of
doubt is harmless besides the bruised ego of the physician, and it takes a
negligible amount of time and effort to carry out. Therefore, there is no reason
to avoid doubting someone by double-checking. This might be telling them
information relevant for their decision of what medicine I should take, or
simply asking if they are sure.
It is natural to be offended when you are doubted, but with therapy this can be
overcome.
More importantly, a healthy form of doubt is necessary for there to be trust in
a relationship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOUBT VS TRUST
Doubt can be seen as the opposite of trust, but this is a misunderstanding of
what trust is. If you tell me to take a red pill, I can doubt that while still
trusting you. In fact, trust is most important when there is doubt. Courage is
when you do something despite being scared; trust is doing something despite
doubting it is true. If I do not doubt anything you say, then I only have a very
shallow form of trust in you.
When I ask you if you’re sure, that does not mean I don’t trust you. If I didn’t
trust you, then asking if you’re sure would be pointless, since I would be
asking the person I don’t trust. If I ask you if you’re sure, that means I have
doubts, but I trust you.
Reassurance
If you tell me to take a red pill, I can remind you that I am allergic to
certain medicines, and I can remind you of what diseases I have, and then you
can reassure me that you chose correctly. In this case, I made sure that you had
all the information you needed, and then I trusted you to act in my best
interest, I trusted your research, and I trusted your decision.
Therefore, I doubted you while trusting you. Trust does not mean I never
question you. I had doubts because verifying things is a good practice, and your
reassurance eased my doubts.
Of course there are people who won’t trust your intentions, research, or
decisions. This might be because they do not like you, or they might trust you
without trusting the people you relied on for your research. We can all be lied
to, after all, and none of us are perfect at figuring out the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPES OF TRUST
INFORMATIONAL TRUST
Why do we trust some things people say, but not others?
If we think that some of the things someone says are true, and some of the
things they say are false, then we are discriminating not purely by who we
trust, but by what things we trust. That means that we are looking at the nature
of what is said, and using that (at least in part) to determine if it is true.
For example, if someone tells us that pigs can fly, we might distrust that claim
no matter who said it, because we consider the very idea that pigs can be fly to
be impossible. Perceived impossibility or unlikeliness are the major factor
determining whether or not we trust a claim, if we base our trust mostly on the
information given.
PERSONAL TRUST
Why do we trust some people, but not others?
If we are judging the truthfulness of a claim not primarily by the content of
the claim, but rather by the person who is making the claim, then we are
discriminating by who we trust. That means that we are judging a person as being
unreliable, so we might consider their claims to be false, even if the claim’s
content sounds true.
Lies:
There are many reasons why someone might lie:
* They might have a history of lying.
* It can be assumed that everyone can lie, unless there are some
physiological or psychological reasons they might not be able to.
Therefore, the mere fact that someone lied does not make them good or bad.
* If they only lied once, that is not a history of lying because one case
does not make a pattern.
* If they lied multiple times, that is a pattern of lying.
* A pattern can be determined by looking at the times they lied. If they
always lie in a certain situation, that would be a pattern.
* To claim that this pattern will continue, we must determine causation. That
means that we must determine if they are lying -because- of the situation
they get into.
* If we do not determine causation, then saying the pattern will continue
would be relying on correlation. You might be right, but you will not know
for sure until you determine causation.
* If you rely on the fallacy of correlation vs causation, you might think
it’s “close enough” and that you do not need to determine the truth with
that much certainty. This might make you feel better, but you are hurting
others for your benefit. If everyone acts like this, we all selfishly hurt
each other and continue the cycle of violence. If we all can learn to not
act like this, we will help each other and avoid adding more harm to the
world.
* They might have a benefit to lying.
* If you lost some money and ask me if I have seen your money, I have a
reason to lie to you: if I lie to you, I will be able to keep the money.
This would selfishly benefit me at your expense, so this is bad.
* They might dislike you, and want to see you suffer. This is sadistic, which
only results in adding more selfishness and harm to the world, so we should
never do this.
* It would be cynical to assume that others are lying for their own benefit.
Of course, there are people who do this, so there is reason to doubt such
claims, but this does not mean that we should never believe anyone who has
a reason to lie.
* When we trust someone’s word, we do right by the people telling the
truth, but we let liars get away with their misdeed. This prevents
harming others, possibly to our detriment.
* When we mistrust someone’s word, we hurt the people telling the truth,
and we reveal those who were lying. This disregards the well being of
others, possibly to our benefit.
* Both options are risks, so it is best to choose them based on the
circumstances. However, it is best to err in favour of selflessness
rather than selfishness.
* You have a bias against them.
* If you do not like someone, you might think that they are a bad person and
will lie. This is illogical, so should never be done. Whether or not you
like someone has nothing to do with whether or not they lie.
* People can lie because they are scared.
* This does not necessarily make them a bad person.
* They likely do not have full control over themselves, and are acting out of
panic.
Given all this, we can then answer the question: what does it mean to say we
don’t trust someone? Does it mean we do not believe anything they say because we
think they are liars? does it mean we do not trust their abilities? Does it mean
we think they hate us? It could mean any such things, and because these are
extremely different things, it means it is extremely vague. Thus we should not
say that we do not trust someone, rather we should be more specific to avoid
giving people the impression that we think lowly of them. This is done by
pointing out the reason we do not trust their claim, for example by saying that
we’re not sure if their good research is still valid years later.
Misinformation:
You might distrust what someone says even if you think they are not lying. When
someone believes something false, they would not be lying when they tell it to
you.
There are many reasons why someone might be misinformed:
* Someone lied to them
* Even if they are good at detecting lies, no one is perfect. Therefore it is
not offensive to suggest that someone believed a lie, since it is a natural
thing that everyone does.
* They did bad research
* They might be good at doing research, but that does not mean that
everything they research is true.
* They did good but limited research
* Let’s say I research the topic of autism. It would be irresponsible of me
to try to diagnose others with autism, since knowing about only -one-
condition does not qualify me to diagnose it. Even if I know the symptoms
of autism, diagnosing autism is not as simple as seeing if they have the
symptoms. For me to diagnose, I would also need to research all conditions
that have similar symptoms to autism. If I don’t do that, I could
incorrectly diagnose autism when the correct diagnosis was something that
has many of the same symptoms. Since a psychological diagnosis can
drastically alter how we live life, what medication we take, and how we
view ourselves, self-diagnosis is dangerous. Self-diagnosis can be the only
option available, so it might be a justified risk, but we should never
forget that it is still a risk.
* They might have good research skills, but the information they were looking
for might have become obsolete since they did that research.
* They have poor skills (for example, in research). I trust my mother to act in
my best interest, but I do not trust her to defuse a nuclear bomb. This does
not mean that I think lowly of her, and it does not mean that I do not trust
her. I would hope that everyone else will think of me in the same way.
In these cases, you trust the person to not lie to you, but you do not trust the
mechanics surrounding what they did. It might not even be their fault. The more
important the matter, the more important it is to doubt every aspect of what
someone claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we do not doubt, we give up our agency and rely on blind faith, which is
never a good thing. We are rational agents who are capable of finding truth
through doubt. Since doubt is the best way to reveal misinformation and lies, we
should rely on this. Blind faith allows lies and misinformation to go
unrevealed, so it is ideal for deceiving people.
It is normal to be offended by being doubted. This might be due to trauma,
pride, insecurity, other psychological conditions, or any other number of
reasons. If you feel ashamed, scared, lesser, or offended when someone doubts
you, it’s OK to feel that way. You should not feel bad for experiencing those
emotions. At the same time, it is something you can avoid feeling. This might
require therapy, so if you cannot get therapy, it’s natural that it will take
you a while to improve on your own. Even if you feel you cannot improve on your
own, it’s important to know that there is an objective you can move towards,
because knowing that will help you identify how you react to being doubted, what
the possible causes might be, and what the consequences are. These are things
that are necessary to help you improve.
Doubt and trust coexist to help us arrive at the truth, which helps us make
better decisions, which helps us live the lives we want to have.
TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS HOW AWESOME THIS IS :D:
* Twitter
* Facebook
* Email
* Print
* LinkedIn
* Reddit
* Tumblr
* Pinterest
* Pocket
*
Like Loading...
HOW TO RESPOND TO SADNESS AND AVOID EMOTIONAL INVALIDATION
Posted by slizer88 on May 29, 2024
Posted in: philosophy. Tagged: communication, counseling, guidance, help,
psychology, relationships, self, self-help, selfhelp, therapy. 2 Comments
To learn about what emotional invalidation really is, what it isn’t, and why
it’s bad, read the previous essay titled “Emotional Invalidation“.
For this essay, we will talk about
* Adam (male pronouns), who has a problem which is making him sad
* Betty (female pronouns), who is listening to Adam talk about his sadness.
This essay will use sadness as one example of the many emotions that can be
invalidated, for the sake of brevity. The other emotions can be talked about in
similar ways.
As far as I can tell, I grew up in an environment where emotional invalidation
happened (and still happens) regularly without being recognised as a concept. I
was lucky to have a comfortable enough upbringing for it to not have had a
noticeable impact on me, other than noticing that I might be doing it to others.
Last year I was accused of emotional invalidation, but I did not understand what
it was. To the end of remedying this issue and preventing it from happening
again, this essay will contain the results of my research and thoughts.
Emotional invalidation is a social act that causes severe psychological harm,
and so it should be avoided. This essay will attempt to explain how and why we
invalidate emotions, and how to avoid doing it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadness is a clear sign that things are not right.
* Most directly, the mere fact that someone is sad is an ethically bad thing,
that is to say, I do not think sadness is something we should celebrate.
Sadness might be the most appropriate response, but that means it’s
necessary, not good. Therefore, we should try to avoid people being sad, and
try to make them less sad, when it’s reasonable to do so.
* More indirectly, if the sadness is caused by a problem, then the problem
might be ethically bad (or if we define a “problem” as bad, then it’s
certainly bad).
Since being sad is not good, we naturally want to help people who are sad, by
making them less sad. This essay will discuss the issues that can arise from
trying to do this. In my experience, people tend to assume that their method for
doing this is the only valid method, but I have learned that there are different
methods, and each has different situations in which they should be used. Using
the wrong method can multiply someone’s sadness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
METHODS:
When Adam expresses his sadness, there are three methods that he might benefit
from:
1. Being listened to
1. This directly helps him by letting him know that he has someone he can
trust, who cares about him, who wants to know what he has to say/what
he’s feeling/what troubles him.
2. The other two methods require you to listen to them, but this method can
be interpreted as listening without talking.
2. Being comforted
1. This directly helps him by alleviating the sadness, even if just a bit.
3. Having the problem solved
1. This indirectly helps him by getting rid of the source of the problem. If
the problem is gone, it can no longer make him sad. The sadness he is
currently feeling might not immediately vanish, but Betty has made sure
that it doesn’t last.
Since each method helps to alleviate Adam’s sadness, each choice shows that
Betty cares about Adam’s sadness. This presumably means that Betty genuinely
cares about Adam, and does not want them to be sad.
Each individual benefits a different amount from each of these method. Some
people need all three. Others may only want to be heard, or may only want a
solution. Meanwhile, Betty might not realise what method Adam prefers. In fact,
Betty might not even realise there are different methods, so she might use the
only one she knows, without realising she might be doing harm. There is a claim
that men tend to favour solving problems, while women tend to prefer
consolation. I do not know if this is a generalisable trend based on gender, and
I do not think it particularly matters, since we shouldn’t be satisfied with an
approach that abjectly fails with anyone who does not fit the norm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROBLEMS
If Betty truly cares about Adam, there are issues with using the wrong method:
1. Listening to someone who expects consolation or advice will make you seem
like you are uninterested.
2. Consoling someone who expects to be listened to will make them feel
interrupted. Consoling someone who expects advice will make you seem
patronising.
3. Giving advice to someone who expects to be listened to or consoled can
result in them feeling like you care more about solving the problem than you
care about how they feel.
If Betty cares about Adam, she might seem uninterested, patronising, or uncaring
if she uses the wrong method. But if Betty does not care about Adam, she might
actually be uninterested, patronising, or uncaring. This might be due to malice,
incompetence, or indifference.
When Someone Does Not Care
Malice
The worst type of person that Betty could be is someone who wants to harm Adam.
This is unlikely, but in this case Betty would have a reason to do what will
harm you the most. They might pretend to be trying to help, while actually doing
it wrongly on purpose. This would achieve doing harm to you, while seeming to be
innocent. Another possibility is that they won’t try to hide their malice, but
then you will know their true intent, and you will be able to try to avoid them.
Incompetence
Sometimes even people who care about you can end up hurting you. In the case of
incompetence, even your closest friends and family can mean well, but make a
mistake. Betty might care a lot about Adam, so she would care immensely about
him being sad. Even then, Betty might have some beliefs that cause these issues.
For example:
1. She might have read an article in a psychology magazine saying that it’s
important to listen to people when they talk about their problems. She might
take this too seriously, and listen without interrupting, missing queues to
console or advise. This might give the impression that she is bored, and is
saying nothing because she doesn’t care.
2. She might have seen her friend silently listen to Adam, and realised that
listening is not enough, so Betty instead decides to compensate for that
with a lot of consolation. She takes every opportunity to apologise and
empathise with Adam. The added enthusiasm can seem like it’s caused not by
genuine concern, but rather by a disingenuous attempt to seem like she
cares. Trying too hard can be confusing, especially when it is
disproportionate to the level of emotions that Adam is presenting.
3. The way that my mind works is that if i have a problem that makes me sad,
solving the problem will get rid of the sadness, though maybe not
immediately. Until last year, I had assumed that this worked the same way
for everyone else. So the way I dealt with almost all problems was to try to
solve it. I tried to solve the problem because I care about the person, and
I don’t want them to be sad, and the way I make them less sad is to fix
their problem. I was not concerned with whether or not the other person knew
about what I was doing, my concern was exclusively on making them feel
better. Even if I was concerned with conveying my intent, I would have
thought that the fact that I was helping would convey my good will, since I
would not help if I didn’t care. When I tried to help someone who wanted
consolation, they felt I did not care about them feeling sad, they possibly
felt I only wanted to solve the puzzle for my own entertainment. I never
imagined my intents could be interpreted like that, so it was my
incompetence and ignorance that caused this issue.
Indifference
Someone who does not care about you would ideally not pretend to care about your
problem to begin with, but they might pretend to care to avoid being rude. In
the case of someone who does not care about you, they will not care about what
you are feeling. They might try to help you just to get through the
conversation, or to get you to stop talking.
When Someone Does Care
These issues are not obvious to people who only know one way to approach others’
sadness. Once Betty knows about the need for different methods, it makes sense
that all of these issues can make her seem like she does not actually care about
Adam’s problem, or his sadness. This would naturally upset Adam, making their
sadness worse, or even making them angry.
Even worse, this is a serious mistake, because if someone really does not care
about your well being, it is almost certain that they do not care about you.
That means that they are almost certainly not your friend, and that they are not
a good person, because good people care about other people.
Therefore, these issues can end relationships. Since they are mistakes, and you
actually do care about the other person, it would be a tragedy to lose them over
a misunderstanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED APPROACH:
Rather than picking a method and using it without considering what Adam needs,
the solution should be to acknowledge that everyone thinks differently, and that
that’s OK. There are two parts to this solution:
1. Adam letting others know what method benefits him the most.
2. Betty asking Adam what method benefits him the most.
This is an easy approach to implement, as it takes a negligible amount of time
to ask, but two issues can arise:
* Adam might be upset that Betty does not know what method to use, or
* Betty might be afraid of seeming socially awkward, or inept for not knowing
the correct method to use. This can be caused by wanting to avoid Adam’s
anger.
Betty’s reluctance is understandable, but is merely something to get over,
because it is more ethical to give people the best help you can, even if it is
uncomfortable. Adam’s anger is also understandable, but we should look at the
reasons why he might be upset:
1. His judgment might be clouded by his emotions, so he might get upset because
he expected consolation and did not receive it. This might make him lash out
and blame Betty, because that anger can be a coping mechanism to deal with
negative emotions. This is a normal reaction, but it is not acceptable to
treat Betty in this way simply to feel better, especially since she was only
trying to help.
2. Adam might think that only one method is valid, no matter who it is for. He
might think that everyone benefits from that one method, and that the other
methods do not work.
3. Alternatively, he might think that it should be obvious that only one method
is valid for the current situation.
Reason 1 is an emotional response. There is no actual reason to be upset with
Betty; blaming them is a purely selfish act, pushing away and hurting someone
who wants to help. Reason 2 is not valid, since it is demonstrably true that
different people benefit from different methods, depending on the situation.
Reason 3 is the most reasonable, but thinking that the correct method should be
obvious assumes that Betty has come to that same conclusion, which can only be
the case if:
1. she has learned it beforehand from somewhere
2. she is capable of determining it on her own
Since the best solution depends on the person and situation, learning it would
require her to have a list of the correct solution for every person and every
situation. This would be impractical, so the alternative is to figure it out for
every case. This can happen in two ways:
1. There are no alternatives to the correct method, which is not the case since
know we have three methods.
2. The alternative methods exist but are not valid for this situation.
Before we can confirm that asking questions for every emotional situation is the
best approach, we have to first figure out if we can figure out for ourselves
what the best method is, rather than ask what the best method is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURING OUT WHAT PEOPLE NEED
Since Betty has three methods that she knows reduce sadness, she would need
additional information to discount two options. This information comes in the
form of:
1. Sensory information, such as seeing Adam’s facial expressions and if he is
crying, hearing his tone of voice, seeing if he is trying to hide his
responses to her
2. His word choice, such as if he is swearing, the topics he chooses to talk
about, whether he has a positive or negative view of those topics
3. The messages he is conveying, such as directly saying he is sad
4. Previously known information about his beliefs and psychology
If Adam says he wants to be consoled, Betty has received all she needs to know
to choose the correct method. Since most people don’t do this, we need to
consider situations with less direct information.
LIMITATIONS OF RELYING ON OTHERS’ STATEMENT OF PREFERENCES
Incomplete Information
If Betty knows that Adam wants to feel better immediately, and that solving his
problems doesn’t give immediate relief, then she would know that listening or
consolation are better options. Adam has given her this information before she
needed it, which is very helpful. However, she would still need to know which of
these two remaining options is better, otherwise she would need to ask. That
means that Adam told her what to do, but he didn’t give her enough information.
He would need to specify not just that he wants immediate relief instead of
problem solving, but he would also need to specify what kind of immediate relief
he wants: being listened to, being consoled, or both. If it is both, he would
also need to specify how much of each is enough. So if we expect others to know
to do, we need to tell them specifically what methods we prefer, and which cases
to use each in. This can be difficult for individuals to figure out on their
own, since it requires time and effort to reflect and analyse your past’s
emotional moments.
Unknown Information
Another problem with this is that even if Adam told Betty that he does not
benefit from problem solving, she still needs to know if he truly -never-
benefits from it. He might say that simply because he can’t think of any times
where it helped him, and the current problem might be different. There are also
many cases where a quick and simple solution to a problem is enough,
particularly if it is not too emotionally charged. If Adam is sad because his
father is dying, then saving his father should alleviate his sadness. So despite
him saying that he doesn’t benefit from problem solving, this would be an case
where solving the problem did help. So even if we are confident that we only
benefit from one method, none of us can ever be sure, since that information
isn’t generalisable.
Mental Context
Of course, we usually know ourselves better than others do, so we might have a
good idea of what benefits us most. At the same time, these are situations where
we are emotional, which can overwhelm our reasoning. This can cloud our
judgment, making us not think too deeply about how hard it might be for the
other person. Adam might have the mental context to know exactly what he wants
right now, but that is because he knows how sad he is feeling, he knows how
lonely he is feeling, and he knows he feels the desire to be consoled. Betty
cannot feel those things inside Adam, and lacks that mental context, so if Adam
believes it is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be explicitly said, then Betty
will have to pick this up from other means, such as his mannerisms, tone, and
other indirect means. Adam could have explicitly said it, but instead choose to
keep that from Betty.
Interpreting Indirect Signs
Because Adam has the mental context of his sadness, he has all the information
required to build up to his conclusions. He knows he is shouting because he is
sad, so naturally, he expects others to know that his shouting is an indicator
of his sadness. The issue is that Betty lacks his mental context, so she is
missing pieces of the puzzle. She could just as easily interpret the shouting as
a sign of anger, so she might think he wants to be left alone. Therefore,
indirect signs are usually ambiguous, so they can be misleading.
Crying would be a clear indicator Adam is sad, but that alone only means you
need help, it doesn’t specify what method of help you need. A shaky voice, an
angry tone, self-deprecation, and other signs generally indicate being upset,
but can also indicate being nervous, joking, or simply having a low opinion of
yourself, without necessarily meaning you want someone to help you. If we always
treat these as a sign to help, we will ruin jokes, or console someone who is
commenting on themselves rather than being upset. To avoid those mistakes, which
are fairly common in my experience, we need to judge every individual situation
we are in. Then we can give an appropriate response to sadness, jokes, or
otherwise. Because these signs can be mean different things, relying on them
would mean we are sending ambiguous messages. The more signs we give, the more
likely others are to piece them together. However, there is no clear minimum
amount of signs that can ensure that everyone will get it. Many people are bad
at reading signs, and since we are not taught how, we cannot just demand that
everyone know how. A much easier and effective method is to simply tell people
what you mean, but understandably, it can be difficult to ask that of people,
especially when they are emotional.
Since sensory and indirect information are unreliable, they will inevitably lead
to misunderstandings. To avoid that, we have to rely on previous or current
things Adam has said. If he has not given a thorough guide to figure out what
method to use, asking him directly is the fastest, easiest, and most effective
method. Even if we did have a general guide to know which method to use in which
situation, that might change or be incomplete. I always want to hear solutions,
so I would tell people that is my preference in all situations. Even though I
can only think of situations where a solution is what I wanted, there could
easily be situations where I would be distraught, or where I know there are no
solutions, so I would just want someone to listen to me vent, or get
consolation. Therefore we should ask which method to use for our current
situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation
Once Betty knows what methods to use, she must then know how much of each to do.
Ideally she would listen for as long as Adam feels he need to be listened to,
console him until he feels better, and then try to solve the problem. If he asks
her to console him, she might be too eager, and not listen to him for long
enough; or she might console him for too long, and not offer a solution even if
she has one. A solution will prevent more sadness, so it is important to know if
he is open to hearing it. Additionally, he might not be open to it while he is
sad, but after consoling him he might have calmed down enough to start talking
about solutions.
Is it enough to say a few lines expressing empathy and consolation? Is it enough
to only say “That is terrible, I understand why you’re so upset.”? If we have a
solution to the problem, is that a reason to spend less time on consolation?
This depends on each individual, which is more reason to communicate these
things.
We cannot expect people to know what we want unless they have a way to learn
that. The best way for others to learn what we want is to tell them, and for
them to ask if we do not. If you want to have healthy relationships, communicate
with that person, no matter how awkward or painful it might be.
TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS HOW AWESOME THIS IS :D:
* Twitter
* Facebook
* Email
* Print
* LinkedIn
* Reddit
* Tumblr
* Pinterest
* Pocket
*
Like Loading...
EMOTIONAL INVALIDATION
Posted by slizer88 on May 29, 2024
Posted in: philosophy. Tagged: counseling, counselling, dismissing, emotional
invalidation, emotions, help, psychology, self, self-help, selfhelp, therapy. 2
Comments
For this essay, we will talk about
* Adam (male pronouns), who has a problem which is making him sad
* Betty (female pronouns), who is listening to Adam talk about his sadness.
This essay will use sadness as one example of the many emotions that can be
“invalidated”, for the sake of brevity. The other emotions can be talked about
in similar ways.
As far as I can tell, I grew up in an environment where emotional invalidation
happened (and still happens) regularly without being recognised as a concept. I
was lucky to have a comfortable enough upbringing for it to not have done much
harm to me, but unfortunately I might have picked it up due to it being so
normalised. Last year I was accused emotional invalidation, but I did not
understand what it was. To the end of remedying this issue and preventing it
from possibly happening again, this essay will contain the results of my
research and thoughts on what emotional invalidation is, and what it isn’t.
Emotional invalidation is a social act that causes severe psychological harm,
and so it should be avoided. This essay will attempt to define emotional
invalidation as thoroughly as possible, and identify what is causing damage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is Emotional Invalidation?
This term is very confusing to me. I have no intuitive notion of what it is, and
there is one main reason for that: I am not sure how an emotion can have
validity. What does it mean for an emotion to be valid, and what does it mean
for an emotion to be invalid?
In my view, emotions have the following properties:
* Cause: the series of events and mechanics that led to this emotion being
felt. The cause of anger might be a coping mechanism for trauma.
* Logical Explanation: an analysis of the nature of those events and mechanics.
If I feel anger when I see something cute, there is surely an explanation for
it, but is that how my mind is supposed to work? Does it make sense?
* Effects: what happened as a result of the emotion being felt. I might
verbally attack someone because I am angry.
* Ethical Justification: an analysis of the harm that is done due to the cause,
explanation, and effects. I look at what happened, and I ask if there is a
better alternative. Attacking someone might make me feel better, but is that
justified when it comes with the price of making someone else feel worse?
But I would never have thought to consider validity as a property of an emotion.
“Valid” could mean many things; when I say an emotion is valid, am I saying that
it exists? That it is logical? That it is ethically justified? That it is
normal? That it is healthy? When someone talks about emotions being valid, I
simply do not know which of these options they are talking about, and the option
matters because it is a very different thing to tell someone that they are not
actually feeling an emotion, than to say that their emotion is doing harm to
them. It is a terrible thing to tell others what they are feeling, since we have
no way of knowing that. On the other hand, if I feel anger when I see something
cute, you should tell me that this isn’t healthy and that I should seek help for
it.
Popular Definitions:
> “Dismissing the feelings of others… [denying one’s] feelings”
>
> – “Recognizing the Pain of Emotional Invalidation” Amy Lewis Bear MS, LPC,
> “Psychology Today”
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/charm-harm/202205/recognizing-the-pain-emotional-invalidation
>
> “the dismissal of a person’s feelings… saying whatever you are feeling or
> thinking right now is irrelevant.”
>
> – “20 Signs of Emotional Invalidation & Why It’s More Damaging Than It Seems”
> Janey Davies, B.A. (Hons) “Learning Mind”
> https://www.learning-mind.com/emotional-invalidation-signs/
These definitions are not bad, but are ambiguous. I think “feelings” is clear
enough, referencing emotions such as happiness, sadness, confusion, fear, anger,
etc., but “dismissing” and “denying” could mean a few things. It may help to
define “dismiss”:
> “to decide that something or someone is not important and not worth
> considering”
>
> “Cambridge Dictionary”
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dismiss
What would it mean for Betty to “dismiss” or “deny” the feelings of Adam? It
could mean:
* Betty does not believe Adam is feeling that emotion
* Betty does not think Adam should be feeling it
* Betty judges Adam for feeling it
* Betty does not care that Adam feels it
With this definition, we can define “emotional invalidation” as probably
accepting that someone is feeling an emotion, but not caring about it. For
example, Adam might say he feels sad, and Betty has no response, or continues to
talk as if Adam had not said that. Worse, Betty might say it doesn’t matter that
he feels sad. If someone does not care about how you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACADEMIC DEFINITION:
> “any social exchange during which an individual’s expressed emotions or
> affective experiences are met with a response from another person that is
> perceived by the individual as implying that their emotions or affective
> experiences are incorrect or inappropriate. This definition characterizes
> emotion invalidation as an active process occurring in response to affective
> communication, and conspicuously prioritizes the perception of the individual
> sharer over the intent or objective behavior of the respondent”
>
> Cited in: Zielinski MJ, Veilleux JC. The Perceived Invalidation of Emotion
> Scale (PIES): Development and psychometric properties of a novel measure of
> current emotion invalidation. Psychol Assess. 2018 Nov;30(11):1454-1467. doi:
> 10.1037/pas0000584. Epub 2018 May 24. PMID: 29792500; PMCID: PMC6212305.
>
> Original source:
>
> Ford G, Waller G, Mountford V. Invalidating childhood environments and core
> beliefs in women with eating disorders. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2011
> Jul-Aug;19(4):316-21. doi: 10.1002/erv.1053. Epub 2010 Oct 19. PMID: 20957770.
This definition is similar, but we need to define in what sense an emotion can
be “incorrect” or “inappropriate”.
I interpret this as referring to the cause of Adam feeling sad. This brings up
three more concepts:
* Betty does not think that Adam’s problem caused his sadness.
* Betty does not think that Adam’s problem should cause sadness in general.
* Betty judges Adam because of this problem being the cause of his sadness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS
If we analyse the sort of situation where emotional invalidation occurs, we can
find at least six different aspects that can invalidated. These six aspects
encapsulate the definitions cited above.
Consider the following situation: Adam is telling Betty about his problem and
how it makes him sad.
There are eight concepts that need to be distinguished:
1. “Adam has has a problem”
2. “Adam is currently experiencing the emotion of sadness”
3. “Adam’s problem caused his sadness”
4. “Adam’s problem does not matter”
5. “Adam’s sadness matters”
6. “Adam’s problem is meant to cause sadness”
7. “Adam has the right to feel sadness”
8. “Adam has the right to feel sadness caused by his problem”
To define “emotional invalidation”, we must ask which of these concepts are
being invalidated, and what “invalidation” means. For the purposes of this
analysis, we can use negation as a proxy for invalidation. That means we will
take each of the six statements listed above, and add the word “not” to them.
It is possible to say:
1. “Adam does not have a problem”
1. This could gaslight* him into thinking he imagined a fake problem, so he
can’t trust his idea of reality.
2. On the other hand, it is possible to see problems where there are none.
For example, I often misinterpret what people say, and think that they
dislike me, so I might be sad and avoid them. I have wrongly assumed that
someone has a problem with me, and I would want someone to correct me. It
would not be gaslighting to tell me that the person actually doesn’t
dislike me.
2. “Adam is not feeling sad”
1. This could gaslight* him into thinking what he’s feeling isn’t real, so
he can’t trust anything he feels.
2. It is not possible to feel the emotions someone else is feeling, so if
you tell someone you feel sad, they cannot know that you don’t feel sad.
They would have to be psychic to know what you’re feeling better than you
know. There might be signs that make you look happy or angry rather than
sad, but those signs are not reliable, so your word should be trusted
over any signs you give, so long as you are being honest. Even if you are
3. “Adam’s sadness is not caused by his problem”
1. It can be difficult to figure out what caused the emotion you’re feeling.
Usually you are the best suited to make the connection between what you
feel and what caused it, because only you have access to your emotional
memories. Other people can only interpret your emotions, never know them
with certainty, so they should trust you.
2. It is possible to incorrectly attribute a cause to how you feel, but it
would require someone who is well-informed, or who has a good insight
about the situation, to figure out that you misattributed the cause of
your emotions. If you did get it wrong, the other person cannot be sure
of it because they can’t feel what you felt when things happened. They
can only go off of how you said you felt, and off of signs you gave that
might have been indicative of your emotions. So they can only suggest it
and see what you think. For example, you might be in denial about having
a romantic interest in someone, but others might have seen subconscious
indications you gave around the person. You might have mimicked the way
they speak, or talk about them frequently, which are things you do
subconsciously, so it’s easy to miss them. It would be beneficial for
others to suggest you might be interested in the person, for you to
consider and think on it.
4. “Adam’s problem does not matter”
1. Adam thinks the problem matters, and he would know better than Betty,
because it’s his problem, so it has affected him more than Betty.
2. It is possible to misjudge if a problem matters. Let’s say that Cameron
told Adam that his essay needs to be improved, and Adam takes that as an
insult. Adam might take this as a big problem, cries because of it, and
avoids Cameron, thinking that Cameron hates him. Let’s say that Cameron
does not hate Adam, and actually likes his essay, Cameron just thinks
there are some small improvements that Adam can make. It would be wrong
to judge Adam for crying, and Cameron should have told Adam that his
essay was good, but it is not wrong to try to help.
5. “Adam’s sadness does not matter”
1. This is terribly mean. To tell someone that it their feelings don’t
matter might be the most unethical of these aspects.
2. Even if someone is trying to overcome sadness, we should still tell them
that it matters. One can still overcome their emotions while caring about
them. Pain can be overcome without ignoring it.
6. “Adam’s problem is not meant to cause sadness”
1. This is the most difficult statement to analyse, because it is not
invalidating something that is happening, or that happened, rather it is
a statement that could be neurological, psychological, or philosophical.
2. Adam could be right, so the problem should cause sadness, for example
losing a loved one justifiedly makes you sad. If Betty tells him he
shouldn’t cry because his loved one died, that is not good.
3. Or, Adam could be wrong, so the problem should not cause sadness. For
example:
1. If I tell you that seeing bright lights makes me feel angry, I might
have a neurological disorder that triggers emotions. It would be
justified for you to tell me that that isn’t normal, and I should have
a medical examination.
2. If I tell you that I feel fear when I see kittens, you might
justifiedly say that that is not the right emotion to feel in
response. There is no discernable reason for me to be scared when I
see a kitten, so I might have some sort of unhealthy psychological
conditioning that makes me afraid for no good reason.
3. If I tell you that I feel worried when I see you smoking, you might
say that I shouldn’t feel that way, because smoking isn’t that bad.
This would merely be a philosophical disagreement, so long as you
trying to convince me, rather than trying to force your view on me.
7. “Adam should be judged for feeling sadness”
1. This is categorically false. Humans have a range of emotions, and we did
not choose to feel those emotions. Everyone has the legal and ethical
rights to feel all emotions.
2. The right to feel emotions should not be confused with the ethical
consequences of feeling emotions. You should never be told that you
aren’t allowed to feel anger, but you can be told to manage your anger,
because our actions have consequences that we are responsible for. There
is no shame in feeling sadness, anger, hate, lust, or anything else,
because we did not choose to feel them.
8. “Adam should be judged for feeling sadness caused by his problem”
1. This is categorically false, for the same reasons as the previous
statement. You always have the right to feel any emotion, regardless of
what caused it. That right cannot be taken away from you.
2. The right to feel emotions caused by something, should not be confused
with whether or not it’s a good idea to feel an emotion caused by
something. You have the right to feel scared when you see a pack of wild
dogs, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a bad idea, since the
dogs will detect your fear and attack. There is no shame in feeling that
fear, but at the same time it’s a good idea to learn to not have that
event trigger your fear. It’s not easy to change your emotional triggers,
but it is often possible, and it’s ethically acceptable to point out that
it would be a good idea to do so. It is not acceptable to shame or force
anyone into trying to change.
*”Gaslighting” is defined here as as a form of deception that causes someone to
doubt their sanity without justification for doing so. It happens when someone’s
feeling or belief is real, but they are told that it is not real, that it’s an
illusion. Since it actually is real, they are now being told that what they
perceive isn’t there, their mind is hallucinating it, and this causes them to
doubt their sanity. However, if the person actually is hallucinating, telling
them so is -not- “gaslighting”. If you and the other person genuinely disagree,
trying to discuss it is -not- gaslighting. If you assume they are hallucinating,
you should be careful, to avoid accidentally gaslighting them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:
Each of these six interpretations of emotional invalidation are questioning an
aspect of the situation. For each of them, there are cases where the questions
hurt, and cases where they help.
Questions themselves are not bad or disrespectful, if you ask them genuinely
with the intent of hearing them out. However, if you ask them with the intent of
forcing your view onto them, that is wrong
1. There is no ethical issue with asking someone if their interpretation of a
problem is accurate,
1. but it’s wrong to assume that someone is imagining problems.
2. There is no ethical issue with asking someone if they truly feel sad,
1. but it’s wrong to tell someone they do not feel sad.
3. There is no ethical issue with asking someone if a problem caused an
emotional response,
1. but it’s wrong to assume that a problem did not cause an emotional
response.
4. There is no ethical issue with asking if their problem has consequences, if
you do not know what the consequences are,
1. but it is wrong to ignore someone’s perceived problems, especially if
those problems affect them.
5. There is a problem with asking if someone’s emotions matter,
1. the only exception is for someone who does not understand how human
emotions work, which is a rare case.
6. There is no ethical issue with asking if a problem should cause an emotional
response,
1. but it’s wrong to force your view on the matter onto others.
7. There is no ethical issue with asking if someone has the right to feel an
emotion,
1. but everyone has that right.
8. There is no ethical issue with asking if someone has the right to feel
certain emotions from certain events,
1. but everyone has the right to feel emotions for any reason.
Since questioning itself is not necessarily the issue, we can look at the
possible issues raised in the six aspects:
1. “Adam does not have a problem
* Gaslighting
* Rejecting others’ views without good reason
* Forcing your views onto others
2. “Adam is not feeling sad”
* Gaslighting
* Rejecting others’ emotions without good reason
* Forcing your views onto others
3. “Adam’s sadness is not caused by his problem”
* Gaslighting
* Rejecting others’ views without good reason
* Forcing your views onto others
4. “Adam’s problem does not matter”
* Gaslighting
* Rejecting others’ views without good reason
* Forcing your views onto others
5. “Adam’s sadness does not matter”
1. Gaslighting
2. Malice
3. Belitting
6. “Adam’s problem is not meant to cause sadness”
* Rejecting others’ views without good reason
* Forcing your views onto others
7. “Adam should be judged for feeling sadness”
* Judging others for things they did not choose
8. “Adam should be judged for feeling sadness caused by his problem”
* Judging others for things they did not choose
The first three aspects gaslight, because they consist of Betty trying to
dictate things that Adam knows better about, because they’re about him. Only
Adam knows what he’s feeling, so Betty cannot ever be certain of that, she’s
better off trusting him.
The second three aspects are more generalised. Rather than dictating things
about Adam, they are Betty’s philosophical/psychological/neurological views,
which presumably apply to all humans equally (but could also be only about Adam
if she is not being fair). Aspects 5 and 6 have the problem of blaming people
for things they probably have no control over, and definitely did not choose.
Based on this list, these are the six reasons that these aspects of emotional
invalidation harm people:
* Gaslighting
* Rejecting others’ views without good reason
* Forcing your views onto others
* Malice
* Belittling
* Judging others for things they did not choose
Let us describe each of the aspects
1. “Adam does not have a problem”
1. Denying a claim of a problem (Problem Denial)
2. “Adam is not currently experiencing the emotion of sadness”
1. Denying a claim of an emotion (Emotional Denial)
3. “Adam’s problem did not cause his sadness”
1. Denying a claim of a cause (Causation Denial)
4. “Adam’s problem does not matter”
1. Denying the importance of a problem (Importance Denial)
5. “Adam’s sadness does not matter”
1. Denying the importance of an emotion (Importance Denial)
6. “Adam’s problem is not meant to cause sadness”
1. Denying a claim of a general cause and effect (Causation Denial)
7. “Adam should be judged for feeling sadness”
1. Denying the validity of an emotion (Emotional Judgment)
8. “Adam should be judged for feeling sadness caused by his problem”
1. Denying the validity of feeling an emotion as an effect (Emotional
Judgment)
We can distinguish between the different things we refer to when we say
“emotional invalidation”:
Denial: refusing to believe what someone probably knows better than you
* Problem Denial: Denying that something is a problem for someone else
* Emotional Denial: Denying that someone else is feeling an emotion
* Causation Denial: Denying that someone else’s problem caused their emotion
* Importance Denial: Denying that what someone cares about actually matters to
someone (this is about what someone values, not what is useful to them)
Disagreement: disagreeing on the nature of things
* Causation Disagreement: Agreeing that someone’s emotions were caused by
something, but disagreeing on whether or not that something should be able to
cause that emotion.
* This is not invalidation, because it’s not a personal matter about
someone’s emotions, it’s just a disagreement about opinions.
Invalidation: accepting that something is true, but judging the person for it
* Emotional Judgment: accepting that someone is feeling an emotion, but blaming
and judging them for feeling it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Isn’t Emotional Invalidation?
* Asking questions with the genuine intent of understanding is not emotional
invalidation.
* Disingenuous questions can be emotional invalidation.
* Genuine disagreements about impersonal things (like if kittens -should- cause
anger) are not emotional invalidation.
* Disagreements about personal things, like if kittens cause you anger, are
usually emotional invalidation.
* Sometimes we don’t understand our own emotions, so it can help us if others
disagree with us, but if they try to force their view onto you instead of
discussing it, that is emotional invalidation.
* Sometimes people feel attacked they’re told that they’re wrong. If I claim
that anyone who disagrees with me is emotionally invalidating me, or
gaslighting me, then I am abusing the concept of emotional invalidation as
a coping mechanism to avoid the pain that comes from feeling inferior. This
would be a bad thing to do, since disagreements are how we grow and improve
as people. If we do not accept that we can be wrong, then we can’t fix our
problems.
* Disingenuous disagreements, like gaslighting, are emotional invalidation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we say “emotional invalidation”, we can be referring to many different
things, and the one that we actually mean can make a big difference. Some are
far worse than others, and we should know just how bad someone’s actions are.
Therefore, I suggest that we treat emotional invalidation as a category of
actions.
To avoid confusion, I recommend the following distinctions,
* Problem Denial: Denying that something is a problem for someone else
* Emotional Denial: Denying that someone else is feeling an emotion
* Causation Denial: Denying that someone else’s problem caused their emotion
* Importance Denial: Denying that what someone cares about actually has meaning
to someone
* Emotional Judgment: accepting that someone is feeling an emotion, but blaming
and judging them for feeling it.
I believe these are the five types of emotional invalidation. It’s OK to ask
questions when you do not understand, denying what you do not understand is
unethical, and judging someone’s emotions is also unethical. Denying and judging
emotions are particularly unethical and harmful.
The next essay will describe how to avoid invalidating someone’s emotions.
TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS HOW AWESOME THIS IS :D:
* Twitter
* Facebook
* Email
* Print
* LinkedIn
* Reddit
* Tumblr
* Pinterest
* Pocket
*
Like Loading...
POSTS NAVIGATION
← Older Entries
* FILTER
* activism
* funny
* game news
* game philosophy
* philosophy
* Uncategorized
* NEWS
My Tweets
*
* PAGES
* Essay Library
* Profile
* SOCIAL MEDIA
* Facebook
* Twitter
* MY SITES
* DeviantArt
* GAMES
* Slizer Battle Management System Game
* Slizer Battle Management System Game – Desura
* Slizer Game
* VIDEOS
* Twitch
* Youtube
* ART
* SLIZER GAME
* SLIZER BATTLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM GAME
Blog at WordPress.com.
slizer88
Blog at WordPress.com.
* Subscribe Subscribed
* slizer88
Join 57 other subscribers
Sign me up
* Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
* * slizer88
* Customize
* Subscribe Subscribed
* Sign up
* Log in
* Report this content
* View site in Reader
* Manage subscriptions
* Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...
Write a Comment...
Email (Required) Name (Required) Website
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website,
you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d
Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started