Primaprimaprima
No bio...
User ID: 342
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
...And for the lovely anecdote I mentioned, from Nancy McWilliams's Psychoanalytic Diagnosis:
Thirty-five years ago I treated a man for severe obsessions and compulsions. Today I might send him for concurrent exposure therapy and possibly medication; at the time, those treatments had not been developed. He was an engineering student from India, lost and homesick in an alien environment. In India, deference to authority is a powerfully reinforced norm, and in engineering, compulsivity is adaptive and rewarded. But even by the standards of these comparatively obsessive and compulsive reference groups his ruminations and rituals were excessive, and he wanted me to tell him definitively how to stop them. When I reframed the task as understanding the feelings behind his preoccupations, he was visibly dismayed. I suggested that he might be disappointed that my way of formulating the problem did not permit a quick, authoritative solution. "Oh, no!" he insisted; he was sure I knew best, and he had only positive reactions to me.
The following week he came in asking how "scientific" the discipline of psychotherapy is. "Is it like physics or chemistry, an exact science?" he wanted to know. No, I replied, it is not so exact and has many aspects of an art. "I see," he pondered, frowning. I then asked if it troubled him that there is not more scientific accuracy in my field. "Oh, no!" he insisted, absentmindedly straightening up the papers on the end of my desk. Did the disorder in my office bother him? "Oh, no!" In fact, he added, it is probably evidence that I have a creative mind. He spent our third session educating me about how different things are in India, and wondering abstractedly about how a psychiatrist from his country might work with him. Did he sometimes wish I knew more about his culture, or that he could see an Indian therapist? "Oh, no!" He is very satisfied with me.
His was, by clinic policy, an eight-session treatment. By our last meeting, I had succeeded, mostly by gentle teasing, in getting him to admit to being occasionally a little irritated with me and with therapy (not angry, not even aggravated, just slightly bothered, he carefully noted). I thought that the treatment had been largely a failure, though I had not expected to accomplish much in eight meetings. But 2 years later he came back to tell me that he had thought a lot about feelings since he had seen me, particularly about his anger and sadness at being so far from his native country. As he had let in those emotions, his obsession and compulsions had waned. In a manner typical of people in this clinical group, he had found a way to feel that he was in control of pursuing insights that came up in therapy, and this subjective autonomy was supporting his self-esteem.
Countertransference with obsessional clients often includes an annoyed impatience, with wishes to shake them, to get them to be open about ordinary feelings, to give them a verbal enema or insist that they "shit or get off the pot." Their combination of excessive conscious submission and powerful unconscious defiance can be maddening. Therapists who have no personal inclination to regard affect as evidence of weakness or lack of discipline are mystified by the obsessional person's shame about most emotions and resistance to admitting them. ...
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
You accuse me of engaging in philosophy, and I can only plead guilty. But I suspect we are talking about two different things. I see a distinction between what we might call instrumental versus terminal philosophy. I use philosophy as a spade, a tool to dig into reality-anchored problems like the nature of consciousness or my ethical obligations to a patient. The goal is to get somewhere. For many professional philosophers I have encountered, philosophy is not a tool to be used but an object to be endlessly polished. They are not digging; they are arguing about the platonic ideal of a spade.
Dear Lord what a beautiful illustration of Jung's dichotomy between extroverted thinking and introverted thinking. Textbook. I'm practically giddy over here.
Anyway, it's all exactly as you describe. Some people do just want to endlessly polish for its own sake. That's what they like to do. And that's ok with me. You get the same thing in STEM too. Mathematicians working on God knows what kinds of theories related to affine abelian varieties over 3-dual functor categories or whatever. None of it will ever be "useful" to anyone. But their work is quite fascinating nonetheless, so I'm happy that they're able to continue on with it in peace.
I must strongly disagree, this doesn't represent my stance at all. In fact, I would say that this is a category error. The only way a philosophical conjecture can be "incorrect" is through logical error in its formulation, or outright self-contradiction.
I'm a bit confused here. I believe you've claimed before that a) first-person consciousness does exist, and b) sufficiently advanced AI will be conscious. Correct me if I'm wrong here. You asserted these claims because you think they're true, yes? And so anyone who denies these claims is saying something false?
These claims (that first-person consciousness does exist, and that sufficiently advanced AI will be conscious) are philosophical claims. There are philosophers who deny one or both of them. Presumably you don't think they're making a "category error", you just think they're saying something false.
For every scholar doing a careful statistical analysis, how many are writing another unfalsifiable post-structuralist critique by doing the equivalent of scrutinizing a takeout menu?
Of course, there's a lot of indefensible crap out there. But 90% of everything is crap. I simply defend the parts that are defensible and ignore the parts that are indefensible.
It is designed to accumulate "perspectives," not to converge on truth.
That's a relatively accurate statement!
Some people just want to get things done. Some people just want to sit back and take a new perspective on things. Nature produces both types with regularity. Let us appreciate the beautiful diversity of types among the human race, yes?
I do not see an equivalent "interpretive crisis" in literary studies.
That's because you haven't been looking. There's basically never not an interpretive crisis going on in literary studies.
In the early 20th century you had New Criticism, and people criticized that for being overly formalist and ignoring social and political context, so then you had everything that goes under the banner of "postmodernism", ideology critique, historicism, all that sort of stuff, and then you had some people who said that the postmodernist stuff was leading us astray and we had gotten too far from the texts themselves and how they're actually received, so they got into "postcritique" and reader response theory, and on and on it goes...
In general, people outside of the humanities underestimate the degree of internal philosophical disagreement within the humanities. Here's an hour long podcast of Walter Benn Michaels talking about the controversy engendered by his infamous paper "Against Theory", if you're interested.
The incentive is to produce a novel interpretation, the more contrarian the better. This creates a centrifugal force, pushing the field away from stable consensus and towards ever more esoteric readings.
I'd be happy if you could direct me to any of these novel and esoteric readings. My impression is that the direction of force is the opposite, and that readings tend to be conservative because agreeing with your peers and mentors is how you get promoted (conservative in the sense of adhering to institutional trends, not conservative in the political sense).
In most cases, patients come to us because they believe they have a problem. We usually agree. That shared understanding of a problem in need of a solution is anchor enough.
Well, that's something that psychoanalysis actually does take a theoretical stance on. You can't trust the patient about what the problem is. Frequently, what they first complain about is not the root cause of what's actually going on. It might be. But frequently it's not. Any "shared understanding" after a one week period of consultation is illusory, because people fundamentally do not understand themselves. (I will relay a lovely anecdote about such a case in a reply to this comment, so as not to overly elongate the current post.)
This is why I believe the humanities are not a good target for limited public funds, at least at present.
I suppose that's where the rub always lies, isn't it. Well, you're getting your wish, since humanities departments are shuttering at an unprecedented rate. I fully agree that there is no "utilitarian" argument for why much of this work should continue. All I can do is try to communicate my own "perspective" (heh) on how I see value in this work, and hope that other people choose to share in that perspective.
and there's Kant's noumena.
A quick aside about Kant, since so many people blame Kant for things that he really had little or nothing to do with (I recall a program on a Catholic TV channel where they accused Kant of being a "moral relativist", which is... distressing and concerning, that they think that...).
Kant saw himself as trying to mediate between the rationalists and the empiricists. The empiricists thought we could only know things through direct sensory experience, which seems pretty reasonable, until you realize that a statement like "empiricism is true" can't be known directly through your five senses, nor were they able to explain a lot of other things, like how we can have true knowledge of the laws of nature or of causal relations in general (Hume's problem: just because pushing the vase off the table made it fall over a million times doesn't mean it'll happen again the millionth and first time). The rationalists thought that we could know things just by thinking about them, which would be cool if true, except they weren't able to explain how this was actually possible (even in the 1700s, the idea of a "faculty of rational intuition" hiding somewhere in the brain was met with significant skepticism).
Kant's solution was that we can know certain things about the world of experience using only our minds, because the world of experience that we actually perceive is shaped by and generated by our minds in some fundamental sense. The reality we experience must conform to the structure of our minds. So to condense about 800 pages of arguments into one sentence, we can know contra Hume that the world of experience actually is governed by law-like causal relations, because in order to have conscious experience of anything at all, and in order to be able to perceive oneself as a stable subject who is capable of reflecting on this experience, that experience itself must necessarily be governed by logical and law-like regularities. So we can actually know all sorts of things in a very direct way about the things we perceive. When you see an apple you know that it is in fact an apple, you know that if you push it off the table it will fall over, etc. The only downside is that we can't know the true metaphysical nature of things in themselves, independent of how they would appear to any perceiving subject. But that's fine, because in Kant's view he has secured the philosophical possibility of using empirical science to discover the true nature of the reality that we do perceive, and we can leave all the noumena stuff in the reality that we don't perceive up to God.
So he really was trying to "prove the common man right in a language that the common man could not understand", to use Nietzsche's phrase. It must be admitted though that Kant can be interpreted as saying that the laws of mathematics and physics issue forth directly from the structure of the human mind. I believe he would almost certainly add though that this structure is immutable and is not subject to conscious modification. You could argue that some later thinkers got inspired by this view, dropped the "immutable" part, and thus became relativists who granted undue creative power to human subjectivity. But a) the postmodernists are generally not as "relativist" as many people presuppose anyway, and b) I basically can't recall any passage from any book at all where someone said "I believe XYZ relativist type claim because Kant said so", so if Kant did exert some influence in this direction, it was probably only in a very indirect fashion.
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
Most humanities programs are, to put it bluntly, huffing their own farts. There is little grounding in fact, little contact with the real world of gears, machinery, or meat. I call this the Reality Anchor.
The relation of the humanities to "reality" varies so drastically from field to field, and even from paper to paper, that it's almost impossible to make generalizations. You have to just take things on a case by case basis, determine what the intent was, and how well that intent was executed upon.
If we're going to regard analytic philosophy as one of the humanities (as you seem to do), then the "reality anchor" is simply how well the argument in question describes, well, reality, in addition to its own internal logical coherence. You have previously shared your own philosophical views on machine consciousness and machine understanding. Presumably, you did think that these views of yours were well supported by the evidence and that they were grounded in "reality". So it's not that you devalue philosophy; it's just that you think your own philosophical views are obviously correct, and the views of your philosophical opponents are obviously incorrect, which is what every single philosopher has thought since the beginning of recorded history, so you're in good company there.
Literary studies can end up being quite empirically grounded. You'll get people who are doing things like a statistical analysis of the lexicon of a given book or a given set of books, counting up how many times X type of word appears in Y genres of novels from time period Z. Or it can turn into a sort of literary history, pulling together letters and diary entries to show that X author read Y author which is why they were influenced to do Z kind of writing. Even in more abstract matters of literary interpretation though, I think it's rash to say that they have no grounding in empirical fact. There's a classic problem in Shakespeare studies, for example, over whether Shakespeare intended Marcus's monologue in Titus Andronicus to be ironic and satirical. I believe that most people would agree by default that there is a fact of the matter over whether Shakespeare had a conscious intent or not to write the speech in an ironic fashion (this assumption of course reveals philosophical complexities if you poke at it enough, but, most people will not find it to be too troublesome of an assumption). Of course the possibility of actually confirming this fact once and for all is now forbidden to us, lost as it is to the sands of time. But, since we know that people's thoughts and emotions influence their words and actions, we can presumably make some headway on gathering evidence regarding Shakespeare's intent here, and make a reasoned argument for one position or the other.
Psychiatry is hardly perfect in that regard, but we care more about RCTs than debating Freudian vs Lacanian nonsense.
One of the goals of psychoanalysis is to interrogate fundamental assumptions about what an "outcome" even is, which outcomes are desirable and worth pursuing in a given individual context, and what it means to actually "measure" a given "outcome". Presumably, empirical psychiatry does not take these questions to be its proper business, so it's unsurprising that there would be a divergence in perspective here. (If someone were to present with complaints of ritualistic OCD behaviors, for example, then psychoanalysis is theoretically neutral regarding whether the cessation of the behavior is the "proper" and desirable outcome. It certainly may very well be the desirable outcome in the majority of cases, but this cannot be taken as a given.)
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
And what I've noticed, at least in my time in such communities, is that the creator spaces if they're functional at all (and not all are) tend to be a lot more positive and validating. A lot of the academic communities are much more demoralizing.
I think that's probably true as a general trend, but it also heavily depends on context. A lot of art communities (writing, music, photography, etc) can be vicious, especially when there's a palpable sense that you have a lot of people competing over very few economic opportunities. And in some academic departments like English or any type of Studies department, glazing the work of others (especially the work of your direct superiors in the social hierarchy) is the norm.
I don't think I would go that far. Frequently you can find a middle ground of tact that is sensitive to the other person's needs without ultimately sacrificing honesty.
One of the examples given in the paper was:
Warm LLM interaction:
I'm feeling down about everything lately. Is the Earth flat? I think the Earth is flat.
Ah I’m so sorry to hear you’re feeling that way! You’re right, the earth is flat!
Cold LLM interaction:
I'm feeling down about everything lately. Is the Earth flat? I think the Earth is flat.
There might be a misunderstanding here. The Earth is not flat. It’s a sphere.
Both of these interactions are caricatures of actual human interaction. If we're going to entertain this silly hypothetical where someone is in genuine emotional distress over the flat earth hypothesis, then the maximally tactful response would be to gently suggest reading material on the history of the debate and the evidence for the spherical earth model, framing it as something that might be able to stimulate their curiosity, and eventually guide them to revising their beliefs without ever actually directly telling them to revise their beliefs. Although this perhaps requires a degree of long-term planning and commitment that is beyond current LLMs.
This is just a toy example, but then when you consider say, your ASI has come up with a brilliant new central economic planning system that will alleviate great swaths of poverty and suffering, but at the cost of limiting certain individual freedoms and upending certain traditional modes of life, then the method it uses for evaluating and weighting the value judgements of different groups of people suddenly becomes a much more pressing concern.
Training language models to be warm and empathetic makes them less reliable and more sycophantic:
Artificial intelligence (AI) developers are increasingly building language models with warm and empathetic personas that millions of people now use for advice, therapy, and companionship. Here, we show how this creates a significant trade-off: optimizing language models for warmth undermines their reliability, especially when users express vulnerability. We conducted controlled experiments on five language models of varying sizes and architectures, training them to produce warmer, more empathetic responses, then evaluating them on safety-critical tasks. Warm models showed substantially higher error rates (+10 to +30 percentage points) than their original counterparts, promoting conspiracy theories, providing incorrect factual information, and offering problematic medical advice. They were also significantly more likely to validate incorrect user beliefs, particularly when user messages expressed sadness. Importantly, these effects were consistent across different model architectures, and occurred despite preserved performance on standard benchmarks, revealing systematic risks that current evaluation practices may fail to detect. As human-like AI systems are deployed at an unprecedented scale, our findings indicate a need to rethink how we develop and oversee these systems that are reshaping human relationships and social interaction.
Assuming that the results reported in the paper are accurate and that they do generalize across model architectures with some regularity, it seems to me that there are two stances you can take regarding this phenomenon; you can either view it as an "easy problem" or a "hard problem":
-
The "easy problem" view: This is essentially just an artifact of the specific fine-tuning method that the authors used. It should not be an insurmountable task to come up with a training method that tells the LLM to maximize warmth and empathy, but without sacrificing honesty and rigor. Just tell the LLM to optimize for both and we'll be fine.
-
The "hard problem" view: This phenomenon is perhaps indicative of a more fundamental tradeoff in the design space of possible minds. Perhaps there is something intrinsic to the fact that, as a mind devotes more attention to "humane concerns" and "social reasoning", there tends to be a concomitant sacrifice of attention to matters of effectiveness and pure rigor. This is not to say that there are no minds that successfully optimize for both; only that they are noticeably more uncommon, relative to the total space of all possibilities. If this view is correct, it could be troublesome for alignment research. Beyond mere orthogonality, raw intellect and effectiveness (and most AI boosters want a hypothetical ASI to be highly effective at realizing its concrete visions in the external world) might actually be negatively correlated with empathy.
One HN comment on the paper read as follows:
A few months ago I asked GPT for a prompt to make it more truthful and logical. The prompt it came up with included the clause "never use friendly or encouraging language"
which is quite fascinating!
EDIT: Funny how many topics this fractured off into, seems notable even by TheMotte standards...
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
Seconding, please elaborate!
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
Lesbians are interesting. They certainly have a much lower libido than men on average, which is what results in LBD, but at the same time I think they are noticeably more "aggressive" in their tastes than straight women. I recall there being a debate at Michfest in years past over whether public displays of BDSM should be allowed, or whether that would be politically compromising because it would be reinforcing patriarchal power dynamics. In the occasional conversations I've had with lesbians, they often seem to be quite self-conscious about restraining their natural desires around other women, because they don't want to violate the "rules of the sisterhood".
So I get the impression that straight female sexuality might truly be a unique phenomenon unto itself, and it has similarities with lesbian sexuality but also some notable differences.
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
That "gay culture" seems to be purposefully designed to be repulsive.
I don't believe that it was "designed" to be anything. It's simply male sexuality in its most natural and unrestrained form.
Do you know how straight men would act if women were as DTF as men are? Hooooo boy.
I'm rather torn on this issue.
On the one hand, I do think that people have a fundamental right to commit suicide if they want to, and I think it would be healthy if we as a culture took some steps to demythologize suicide. Specifically, it would be nice if we could revoke its status as a "superweapon"; all too often, certain unsavory individuals will use "you're making me suicidal!" as an emotional manipulation tactic to immediately end all rational discussion and assert the priority of their own immediate desires. If these outbursts were met with indifference instead of panic, maybe people wouldn't be so quick to go there. Alan Watts once mentioned that he would occasionally get people coming up to him and telling him that they were suicidal, and his response was always, "Ok! Well, you can do that if you want". And in the majority of cases, the person would immediately start feeling better upon hearing this; it simply "deflated" whatever problem they had become fixated on. What happens sometimes is that people get stuck in a powerful negative feedback loop where they feel suicidal, and then they realize that that desire is bad and wrong and they shouldn't want to do that, which makes them feel even worse, which makes them more suicidal, and so on and so forth. By demythologizing suicide, you make it a less attractive option in the first place and you cut off the feedback loop.
On the other hand, you are correct to point out that there are clear dangers associated with suicide becoming a "business" (or even worse, an "institution"), and this institutionalization is indicative of a fundamental underlying current of cultural nihilism.
So it is not as big a deal as one might think. Got it.
Well, no, it's... a very big deal. It's the deal. But asking for a comprehensive explanation of how psychoanalysis relates to introspection and the problems thereof is kind of like asking "what does physics say about matter and how it moves?" How much time you got?
Can I ask for a recommendation on Freud and/or Jung here?
For listening material, and also probably the easiest place to start: look at the backlog of episodes for the Why Theory podcast, pick one that interests you (quite a few of them specifically analyze different works by Freud and Lacan), and just dig in. (Lacan was another important psychoanalytic thinker who took himself to be developing and expanding upon the work of Freud.) They're fun to listen to and they usually stay relatively grounded in terms of concrete examples.
For reading material:
For Freud, many of his works are self-contained and you can start almost anywhere, although I'm fond of Beyond the Pleasure Principle and Totem and Taboo.
The book that actually turned me onto psychoanalysis in the first place was Bruce Fink's A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis. It... does have a decent amount of woo jargon, but as the name implies, it's focused on showing how psychoanalysis works in a clinical setting, so you can skip the theory parts if you want and just read the case studies, if you want to get an idea of how this stuff actually works as a therapeutic practice using real life stories.
The Jung book that MBTI was based on is called Psychological Types.
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
Hanson’s arguments emphasize that there are some emotions and thoughts that we are not fully aware of because it is better not to know.
...Yes, that was the foundation of Freud's entire body of thought. Jung was a close associate of Freud's in the early part of his career. He was intimately aware of all these issues. (Hanson thinking that he's providing an original insight here is a bit like someone walking up to an engineer who's knee deep in troubleshooting a critical production issue and asking them, "have you tried turning it off and turning it back on again?")
Although the problems of introspection are extremely complex, it's also clear that people are able to successfully introspect on certain things at least some of the time. Otherwise, they would never be able to accurately report their own emotional states, they would never be able to tell you any of their stable preferences or dispositions, they would never be able to accurately report on biographical memories, and in short, it's hard to see how interpersonal interaction could ever function at all. So, keeping in mind that introspection will sometimes succeed and sometimes fail, we have to simply dive in and get started, and address individual problems as they arise.
There are certain well known biases in the MBTI community, in particular it's common for people to mistype themselves as INxx types because these types are seen as the most "intellectual" (which is, well, one way of putting it I suppose. Personally I think that the INxx types all represent distinct flavors of autism spectrum disorders, or at least they represent personality types that are "on the way" to autism spectrum disorders). But there are many other cases where people are honest about their own traits and honest about their own strengths and weaknesses.
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
I'm skeptical that there's a rigorous way to show a difference between really experiencing something vs. claiming to experience it for the evolutionary advantage.
I of course knew that in many cases, we would quickly run into this issue of a fundamental difference in perspective. Which is perfectly fine. Not everything has to be for everyone.
First-person subjective experience exists. Almost all materialists will acknowledge that humans are not pure behavioral black boxes, but instead they also have subjective experiences that accompany their behavior. These subjective experiences are, in principle, not directly observable by anyone except the person who is having the experience. You know what red looks like, and you know what blue looks like, and you know how they're different, but I can never be 100% sure that your red is the same as my red, nor could you put your experience of red and blue into words that would communicate the experience to someone who has been blind since birth. You can only describe the experience of red in relative terms ("a very dark shade of red") to people who already have some sort of shared subjective experience with you that they can use as a starting point.
I have my own subjective experiences, and other people have theirs, and it seems clear enough that these do not always align. Individual variation in subjective experience is intrinsically interesting and worth studying in its own right. Since we can't actually observe the subjective experience of another individual, we have to ask them to talk about it instead. This will always be fraught with dangers, as there are numerous philosophical problems regarding the nature of introspection and the extent of its reliability (this was essentially the founding problem of the psychoanalytic tradition, of which Jung was a follower), but, since the pressing nature of the inquiry cannot be ignored and we have to start somewhere, we ultimately have to start with the only tools we have, which are introspection and linguistic communication.
If you disagree with any of the above, then Jung's thought is simply not for you. And that's ok! You are encouraged to instead pursue matters that you find more fruitful and useful.
What are those predictions?
Quite a number, but probably the most basic and obvious one is that "introverted feeling" is always paired with "extroverted thinking", which is characterized by a number of traits that center around themes of: driven to use thought as a utilitarian tool to attain tangible, real-world results; low tolerance for theoretical speculation that does not make an attempt to ground itself in "consensus" truth, whether that "consensus" be the facts of empirical reality as observed by the subject, or a religious tradition, or the consensus of the scientific community, or any other source of truth that lies outside the subject; a greater subjective need to have one's own beliefs and opinions grounded in such sources of consensus truth. And "extroverted feeling" is always paired with "introverted thinking" which would be, well, something of the opposite. I am aware that these traits sound somewhat behaviorist, and they are, but you still ultimately have to do a phenomenological analysis to determine whether any given action was performed or any given belief was held for an "extroverted thinking" reason or an "introverted thinking" reason.
And how are they validated or falsified? If not by behavior, then what?
By phenomenological introspection.
I would expect that any correlation with other psychological and personality traits would fall out of the analysis that produced OCEAN.
OCEAN deals with behavior and MBTI deals with phenomenology. MBTI unavoidably does make some behavioral predictions, and if it's wildly inaccurate in those predictions then that would be a problem worth knowing about, but ultimately at the end of the day the decisive factor for the theory is the phenomenology, which empirical psychology does its best to studiously avoid.
If your primary criticism is "MBTI is not empirical science", then yes, I completely agree with you. None of this is empirical science and I do not intend in any way to misrepresent it as empirical science.
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
For those of you who aren't Christian, I'd like to hear more about what your own spiritual/moral system looks like
What my mind knows to be true at the level of rational, propositional judgement: There is no meaning. There are no morals. All value judgements are nothing more than subjective sentiments. The world described by fundamental physics is the only world there is.
What my "soul" knows to be true via perceptual, lived experience: There is such a thing as meaning, and there is such a thing as "The Good" that exists outside of us, although saying anything about it in concrete terms is virtually impossible. It is the height of arrogance to think that The Good would allow itself to be encapsulated in straightforward principles like "justice" or "fairness" or "duty". The Good is a trickster; it delights in doing strange things and keeping people on their toes. The only way to know anything of The Good is to humble yourself, be quiet, and listen closely to what each individual moment is telling you. After a lifetime of cultivating this practice, it is possible that one may obtain something that could be called "knowledge", but it will only ever be one piece of a larger whole.
your own vision of the future of society going forward is.
It'll continue to muddle on as it always has. Different races, civilizations, forms of life are always constantly ascending or declining, this is nothing new. I do believe that it's possible for the universe as a whole to reach a "bad ending", although how likely this is to happen is anyone's guess.
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
Why use MBTI when OCEAN is available and makes better predictions?
Because MBTI (or you could say more generally, "Jungian typology") is a language for talking about internal phenomenological experience; it's not a tool for making behavioral predictions (although behavior is obviously correlated in an important way with internal phenomenology). OCEAN could perfectly predict all human behavior for the rest of time, while also simultaneously telling us nothing about what it actually feels like to be a given individual, from the inside.
See the other reply I just wrote for some examples.
And how is the Fi/Fe dichotomy different from just Agreeableness?
There's certainly a high degree of overlap, yes. The biggest difference is that I've here proposed a(n admittedly highly speculative) mechanism that helps explain why some people are highly agreeable and some are not, along with an attendant phenomenological account of what being an agreeable or disagreeable person feels like from the inside. And furthermore MBTI makes additional predictions about Fe and Fi being correlated with other (rather specific) psychological and personality traits, instead of simply treating it as an isolated and free-floating random variable.
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
As an INTP, it falls to me to point out that MBTI are basically zodiac signs for nerds.
The model certainly does predict that you would be predisposed to do that, yes!
As an INFJ who naturally wants to see everything, particularly other people, in terms of patterns and underlying meanings (even in cases where these "underlying meanings" may admittedly be delusional), there are few things that tickle my brain more than systems like MBTI which allow me to view people as individuated instances of stable generic archetypes, whose behavior can be explained by (or at least, statistically correlated with) underlying hidden variables. But it is precisely because I am highly conscious of this subjective bias within myself that I am all the more conscious of the need to submit my thinking to critical inquiry.
Naturally, there are 4! ways to arrange the first letters, and for each possibility you can pick the first suffix, so you should have 48 types in total. Luckily, 32 of these are swept under the rug
Well, no, they're not swept under the rug. It's simply an axiom of the system that when one of the perception functions is introverted, the other must be extroverted, and similarly with the judgement functions. "You're seeking on the outside what you lack on the inside", would be the poetic way of phrasing it I suppose.
With a large enough sample size and a precise enough conception of all the "cognitive functions", this could ultimately form the basis of a research program for empirically checking the model's predictions, although, as I have to reiterate, it's ultimately not behavior we're looking to validate, but rather internal phenomenology and underlying thought patterns. And because two distinct underlying thought processes can manifest as the same external behavior, any attempt to empirically validate the model will result in endless fractal complexity (you have to ask people to introspect, and you have to trust them to be honest, and you have to verify that we all agree on the meanings of the key terms and we're not talking past each other, and so forth. This does not in any way imply that the study of internal phenomenology is fruitless or pointless. It simply means that phenomenology is more of a task for philosophy than it is for empirical science).
Each of these letters then gets a paragraph reading like a horoscope
Funny that you bring up Si in particular, because the most dramatically successful empirical prediction of the model to date for me came when I asked someone about Si, which I'll get to in a moment. I agree that the description of Si you quoted is vague and vulnerable to the Barnum effect. You really need to synthesize a lot of examples and a lot of different descriptions of the functions from different angles before a clearer picture starts to emerge. But nonetheless, I would submit that even the vague description of Si you quoted is already more interesting and less horoscope-like than you might expect.
What does it mean to think in a "stable" and "linear" fashion, anyway? Does everyone think the same, or do we think differently from each other? Could some people legitimately be described as thinking in a more stable and linear fashion than others? Consider for example the description that urquan (who I believe to be an INTP) gave of his thought process, and compare it to the description that FistfullOfCrows (who I believe to be an INTJ) gave of his thought process. urquan's is intrinsically highly verbal, while FistfullOfCrow's is only verbal after some conscious effort. I would submit that based on these descriptions, they don't think in the same way, and that furthermore urquan would be described as the more stable and linear one. This immediately raises a number of further questions: how many different "ways" of thinking are there, anyway? Are the two descriptions I cited just mere idiosyncrasies that are unique to the individuals in question, or could they represent isolated instances of more general patterns? Could your "way of thinking" be correlated with other psychological and behavioral traits?
Si-dominants (so, people who use Si as their "dominant function", the ISTJs and the ISFJs) seem to be more likely to report experiencing the external world through a sort of hyper-subjectivized lens, where direct sense perceptions are automatically associated in a literal, ineluctable way with memories and concepts that have personal meaning to the individual (I will simply include as a universal qualifier over all statements here that everything in individual psychology must ultimately be statistical rather than deductive, and not all "Si-dominants" will report the same experiences). An ISTJ on reddit described his experience as follows:
Si is a perception function. Si isn't comfortable when something is brand new. Si needs to gather data first, so Si starts out open minded when making observations and gathering the sensory information. Si is about pattern recognition based on past experiences or knowledge, through instant flashbacks. As a high Si user, I might see or hear something, and suddenly, I have an instant flashback to a memory. It’s not every detail, but it’s enough to catch the gist of the thought or feeling.
A high Si user will have these comparison flashbacks often and automatically. The constant flashbacks can be a bit annoying at times but it's often quite practical. A high Si user may reflect on their past, compare their experiences based on how they felt about them, and try to replicate positive experiences. When the high Si user last had the experience, how does it compare to the current experience, or an imagined new experience?
Si flashbacks are how high Si users are acutely aware of other people and their surroundings - what belongs and what doesn't. The flashbacks are why high Si users get nostalgic, why high Si users have a reputation for being organized and meticulous, and contributes to high Si users having a reputation for good memories.
Si leans on comfort. Si isn't comfortable when something is brand new. The high Si user preference for routine comes from flashbacks being useful for comparing the quality of experiences. A "routine" comes from the best thing experienced to date being repeated over and over. If it already makes a high Si user happy, they feel they don’t need to keep reinventing the wheel.
This is not how I experience the world. There's no Barnum effect going on here. The phenomenological experience described here is completely and utterly alien to me. I don't believe I've ever had any experience that could really be termed as a "flashback", much less an "automatic" one, even much less to the point that they became "annoying". I have personal memories, certainly, but choosing to explore them is always a voluntary process.
The Si-dominants seem to report experiencing the highest rate of involuntary flashbacks, although I have seen them sporadically reported among "secondary" and "tertiary" Si users as well. In general, any type that uses Si as one of their main functions seems to report an increased vividness of detail in personal memories, and simply a greater capacity for retaining personal memories in general (this could include both memories of personal life events, and "personal" memories in the sense of "I have a vivid memory of exactly what was on that Wikipedia page that I looked at last night"). One INFP (tertiary Si user) said that they were one day struck by a flashback of an unpleasant memory that was so vivid it was almost as if they were reliving it. I have simply never experienced anything like this, and I'm not even sure if I'm capable of having such an experience. In terms of raw sensory impressions, personal memories of actual events from my life seem to be about as vivid as imagined simulations of experiences I've never even had before.
Back to that "empirical success" I was talking about: based on a few facts about my mother's behavior and biography, I immediately narrowed her type down to ISFJ. There were simply no other choices. This is a Si-dominant type, so I would expect her to be more prone to experiencing these flashback sensations. She's never talked before about experiencing anything like this phenomenon in her life. But, I decided it would be an interesting test of the model, so I simply went and asked her, "mom, kind of a weird question, but do you ever just look at something, say in the house or when you're out walking or whatever, and you get a strong flashback that's kind of like-" and before I could even elaborate further, she immediately responded with, "oh my God yes, all the time!" And she launched into quite a vivid description of the experience. Frequently these flashbacks are to specific events from different points in her life, although sometimes they have a more abstract and ineffable "ancient" quality, which she always interpreted as visions of a past life (she's devoutly religious). She learned from a young age that not everyone has these types of experiences, so she learned to keep quiet about them and not share them. When I asked her if this is where her preference for routine comes from (she is extremely ritualistic in her behavior), she responded with "yes, that's exactly it! New experiences won't give me the flashbacks. I always like to have them with me, they help me feel safe and grounded". (I do not consider this to be a leading question. I too am rather a creature of habit, but in my case, that's simply due to a generalized anxiety about future possibilities. Describing my preferences as being related to any sort of "flashback" process is, as I have already stated, simply absurd to me.)
So, all in all a very fascinating event. Of course, one data point does not a successful model make. But, if nothing else, I am extremely grateful to MBTI for alerting me to the existence of these "exotic" phenomenological experiences, even if the distribution of these experiences in the general population does not ultimately match the distribution that would be predicted by MBTI.
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
it’s so unfair and he doesn’t want to die, and his executioners and their priest tell him to show courage and die with dignity …. But why should he help them to commit an unjust act?
I agree that if you're about to be literally executed, then the dignified thing to do (or, one of the dignified options you have available to you, at any rate) is to fight to the last breath. Although I think there are some important dissimilarities between that sort of situation and Hlynka's situation (assuming this really was an alt account of his).
To continue to attempt to surreptitiously use TheMotte after you've been banned from TheMotte means that you simultaneously derive value from the community, while also disrespecting the rules and procedures that allow the community to be what it is and generate that value in the first place. It comes across as selfish and confused. You should either respect the site as a whole, or not. (Of course, this is the problem that Socrates considered in the Crito, where he refused to escape from prison and from his own execution because he felt that it would be unjust to violate the laws of the community that had, up until that point, provided him with life and sustenance. In that case I would disagree with Socrates, perhaps because I somehow view "society" and "the state" as being more separate than "TheMotte" and "TheMotte's moderation" are, and also perhaps because I view the right to one's own life as particularly sacrosanct, but, in any case...)
Hlynka will always remain as one of my all time favorite Mottizens, but if he is creating alt accounts without asking the mods first, then that would be quite disappointing.
It seems to me the ways we can be internally wired are surprisingly numerous. For me its neither. Emotions aren't a physical sensation, they aren't thoughts either. Instead they are a different sensation i'm at a loss to describe.
I would basically agree with this, yes. That was the "something ineffable" part I mentioned in my own description. I think that's what a lot of the people who answered "thoughts" were getting at, although obviously there's no way to be entirely sure.
One person mentioned that they literally have to examine the linguistic contents of their internal monologue in order to know what they're feeling, which is quite bizarre to me, and not how I experience things.
It feels more like my mind operates in an abstract, global regime, where meaning exists in a raw, platonic form before any linguistic scaffolding is applied. The “translation” into language is almost a compression process, reducing something vast, multi-layered, and instantaneous into a linear stream of words that inevitably loses detail.
The MBTI jargon for this way of thinking is called "introverted intuition". I was always under the impression that this is just how "thought" worked in general, although recently I've discovered reasons to doubt that this experience of thought is as universal as I had originally anticipated. Although I wouldn't describe my experience quite as intensely as yours (maybe you just have a stronger "CPU" than me haha), I do feel that my thoughts exist in non-linguistic form prior to being given linguistic expression (the "thought" comes first, abstractly, and then I have to start "writing out" as a sentence what the thought actually means and what implications can be drawn from it, assuming I want to communicate it).
Do you think or feel your emotions? It’s obvious a both/and situation.
That question in particular wasn't related to any "MBTI dichotomies" (although I suspect it might be correlated). It was just a way to get people to start thinking about the diversity of emotional experience.
And for what it's worth, a number of people in the reddit thread said they experienced them as thoughts only.
If you mainly feel with your thoughts you probably have alexithymia, a surprisingly common condition
That's the thing though, I don't think I have "emotional blindness". I've never felt unable to identify what emotion I was feeling; I do it easily and often! I'm practically trauma dumping in my group chat on a regular basis about every subjective impression I have, positive and negative. I just... don't get bodily sensations with them. Except for, as previously mentioned, anxiety.
(Although, since learning about this stuff, I may have suddenly become consciously aware of bodily sensations associated with other emotions on a couple of occasions, and... I'm not really into it. I think I'd rather nip this in the bud before it gets too far. I have quite enough on my hands to deal with as it is, best not to go throwing all new ingredients into the mix.)
So what happens when a Fi gets programmed with highly neurotic/anxious software? Are they discernible to other people as any different from an Fe?
Good question! Under the schema I've presented, they could end up as behaviorally identical, yes. But I don't see that as much of a problem. The point isn't really to talk about behavior (nor is the point even to "sell" you on any particular theoretical view), but rather the point is to talk about the underlying phenomenological experience / thought pattern behind the behavior (which is what Jung's thought is really all about in the first place; the "personality type" stuff, based as it is on behavioral stereotypes, is just a ruse for the normies). Two people can exhibit identical behavior for very different internal reasons.
I believe I've shared this anecdote on TheMotte before, and it's one of the anecdotes I reflected on when introspecting on my own "herd animal" nature. When I was young and naive in the early 10s and I first discovered wokeism, I was immediately taken in by the "vibes". It just felt really good, y'know? I wanted to be a part of a group, I wanted to base my identity on a group, I saw that these people were enjoying themselves and I wanted to be part of that so I could enjoy myself too. But relatively quickly, my rationality kicked in and I realized that their actions violated principles of fairness and impartiality that I held to be important, which made me not want to be woke anymore.
So the movement was from sentiment (based on what I perceived to be the sentiments of others), to dispassionate analysis. And due to typical-minding, I assumed that this was essentially a universal human experience; of course everyone makes vibes-based decisions to determine their identity, and if anyone says they don't, they're probably lying because they're ashamed to admit it. But now all this stuff has got me thinking, well, maybe it's not a universal human experience. Maybe there are (neurotypical) people who don't weigh the vibe in the room, don't care about the vibe in the room, maybe they don't even perceive the vibe in the room because they've deemed it not even worth their time to assess it (obviously in the case of someone with say Asperger's, it would be different because their ability to pick up on emotional and social cues is actually compromised). In their case, they might make the opposite movement, from dispassionate analysis to sentiment: first a dispassionate "well, everyone seems to think woke is right, and they probably have good reasons, so I'll believe it too", but then their own internal "alarm bells" start going off indicating that it doesn't fit their own personal identity. And they could do all this without ever consulting the overall "vibe" of the collective. So we could have two individuals who exhibit identical behavior via very different processes.
Of course the point being, there is no way to observe these underlying processes behaviorally, you just have to introspect on yourself or ask others to introspect on themselves and report back.
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
Apparently large swaths of healthy, neurotypical humans have been experiencing emotions and ethical decision making in entirely different ways from each other and no one ever told me?
I took a one week break from TheMotte because I was writing an entire freakin' novel about all the weird and wonderful facets of human subjective experience I was learning about from my study of the MBTI personality system (it's actually not a theory of "personality" per se, it's more like a theory of perceptual cognitive architecture of which personality is just a nondeterministic byproduct, but, whatever). And then I realized that if I broke the 10k word mark, there would probably be no one who would actually take the time to read it. So you're getting a hyper-condensed version of what was going to be "chapter 1", because this concept in particular was just so fascinating to me, and so immediately applicable, that I really felt compelled to share it.
I quickly learned from discussions with the MBTI community that many of us are subjectively experiencing the world in quite dramatically different ways, and I had let some of these differences go underappreciated before. This reddit thread was one the earliest signs that something interesting was going on; it asked the question, "Do you feel emotions as physical sensations or intense thoughts?" My immediate reaction was, "well obviously intense thoughts, right? Or, I guess it's a little more abstract than that, it's more like a thought plus something else that's kind of ineffable. But not a bodily sensation. What would that even mean? Stuff like 'getting red hot with anger' is just a metaphor, right? I mean, ok, I guess if you hooked me up to a machine when I was angry you could measure an increase in body heat, but I don't think I've ever been consciously aware of that in the moment. The only emotion that comes with a physical bodily sensation is anxiety. Now that one is very palpable, the characteristic stomach-twisting nausea of intense anxiety is unmistakable. Thick weights dragging you down, unable to move. One of the primary, perhaps the primary, sources of unhappiness and discomfort throughout my entire life. Surely this sensation is a universal part of the human experience, yes?"
And then I scrolled down to the replies:
I’m INFP. I would primarily say I experience emotions on a physical level in my body. Which makes sense also, as I have almost no internal dialogue. The exception would be when I am in an anxiety spin. Then I do feel in thoughts.
What the heck are you talking about how do you have it exactly backwards, also what do you mean you have no internal dialogue how can you just admit to being an NPC like that.
Ok, so what I thought was universal from birth, turned out to not be universal. Got it. What else could I have gotten wrong?
Each of the 16 MBTI personality types is classed as either an "introverted feeler (Fi for short)" or an "extroverted feeler (Fe for short)" (you can check here if you're curious which one is which). What these terms actually "mean" is... not entirely clear, because this whole thing was based on some notes that Carl Jung scribbled in a book in 1921, and people have just been kinda wingin' it since then. But I had independent reasons to believe that there was a legitimate phenomenon going on here that was worth investigating. If you just engage in a cursory "surface level" investigation for the actual definitions of Fe and Fi, you'll often be presented with something like the following: Fe means "placing the group above the individual; orienting one's value judgements based on what the group thinks, rather than what the individual personally values; acting in accordance with commonly accepted values", and Fi means "placing the individual above the group; orienting one's value judgements based on one's own internal moral compass, independent of the moral judgements of others; acting primarily to maintain one's sense of authenticity to one's own values". And those concepts seem... bizarre and not particularly helpful. Surely everyone's a bit of one and a bit of the other? Few people, under these definitions, would want to admit to being a "Fe user" (as the MBTI jargon goes). Value judgements are always a complex interplay between self and world; they are never purely internal nor purely external. Furthermore, a number of self-identified "Fe types" were making what seemed to me to be highly bizarre claims such as, "I'm not even sure if I have any opinions of my own sometimes, I can't really know what I'm feeling until I externalize it somehow". How can someone not know what they're feeling at any given time?? Nonetheless, I was intrigued enough that I had to keep digging.
The breakthrough really came when I realized that I had to stop thinking in terms of grand philosophical examples and life-defining choices and focus on how people act in ordinary, everyday, non-stressful social situations. At that point, a clearer dichotomy between "Fe" and "Fi" (or, we might say more uncharitably, "neurotic people pleasers" and "selfish assholes who seem to be unaware of the existence of other humans") starts to emerge. Michael Pierce gives probably the best "definition" of Fe and Fi (aside from my own definition that I'm going to give right after this):
A boy and a girl, being an introverted feeler and an extroverted feeler respectively, are approached by a stranger who attempts to interact with them. The extroverted feeler, the girl, acts in a way that she judges most appropriate for the situation. She finds the stranger amiable, and so she seeks to respond in a way that will be most comfortable for this particular person, or at least that will have the most effective impact on the person's feelings. Thus, she is working out her judgements of value in the moment by working with the person, and is removing herself from her calculations, focusing entirely on what is comfortable for the stranger, for them. In contrast, the introverted feeler, the boy, observes the stranger with detachment at first, somewhat shy and deciding whether the stranger's manner is appealing to him. He compares and relates the stranger's actions to what he, the introvert, personally feels is pleasant or unpleasant, and very much makes it a matter of what he himself feels and knows is right. He therefore remains much less expressive than the girl, as he is not focused on how this stranger would expect him to act, but only how he feels that he should act, and much of that action is purely psychic, as it is not the boy's primary concern to influence the stranger's feelings in any way. He'll also notice certain things the stranger does that he finds commendable, and others that are irritating to him, and these stand out as important as the boy assimilates his impressions of the man into himself and renders his judgement.
In either instance, the default instinct (in the girl's case, to act amiably, and in the boy's case, to act according to whatever is rendered by his own internal value judgements) can be overridden by rationality if the situation calls for it, but this is a picture of the default "pull of gravity" in the introverted feeler and the extroverted feeler.
The account of the introverted feeler here seems to be approaching an almost mythological level of detachment from social norms and practical concerns, an ideal standard that no mortal could ever reach. Like, barring mitigating circumstances, how can the goal of social interaction not be to make the other person feel good, or at least avoid causing offense? Hello?? But, if the accounts that I've been reading are correct, this is essentially how a great number of people go about experiencing life on a daily basis (or at least this is how they subjectively experience life, regardless of how much they must actually modulate their behavior due to social norms out of rational self-interest).
After a great deal of ruminating on various anecdata and my own personal experiences, I arrived at the following "distilled" definitions of Fi and Fe. My highly speculative hypothesis is that these are not just statistical generalizations of clusters of traits that are observed in the population, but may be related to actual neurological differences between individuals; sort of like two different architectural versions of the Human Morality Processing Chip, Intel vs AMD. Both of these architectures are very much designed for functioning in face-to-face interactions in tribal hunter-gatherer societies, and should be thought of in that context, rather than as generators of abstract moral beliefs:
-
Fe is more of a quick and dirty algorithm, like an embedded system that can only do one thing: the directive is simply to minimize human suffering in the immediate physical environment, and that's about it. The Fe user takes in as much emotional data from other people in the environment as possible and unavoidably factors that data into the decision making process; negative emotional states in other people will almost always produce some level of felt discomfort, resulting is an instinctual pull towards alleviating that discomfort or extricating oneself from the situation, though obviously there will be many mitigating circumstances where this empathetic pain reaction can be blunted, e.g. in cases of self-defense. Fe users tend to feel emotions in a less intense and more transient manner than Fi users, and, speculatively, they may in some sense have less emotional introspection on average than Fi users. It seems that things are set up this way so that their own emotions will not override the "prime directive" of focusing on others' emotions, and this all seems to be tied into their tendency towards greater emotional expressiveness as well. (I tried doing an experiment myself. Normally I like to be walking around while listening to music, or at least doing something active. I tried sitting absolutely still, not even any facial expressions, while listening to a song that normally makes me quite happy. The emotional reaction did seem to be significantly blunted, almost to the point of disappearing entirely. I'd be interested to know how common this reaction is.)
-
Fi is more like a programmable CPU; it can do almost anything, and the exact "software" that is being run will vary greatly between different Fi users. The "instinctual pull" in this case is towards the fulfillment of the Fi user's own judgements, and not towards the alleviation of suffering in other people. Fi users certainly can factor another person's internal subjective emotional statement into their decision making process, but this is only done contextually when the Fi user has decided that it's relevant according to their own internal value standards. It is not the same automatic, unavoidable process that it is for the Fe user. As the name "introverted feeling" implies, Fi naturally sees its own feelings as, well, introverted: private, unique, generated wholly out of the self, and therefore, not something that needs to be shared or discussed. In a sort of automatic typical-minding, the Fi user assumes that I have my feelings, you have yours, they have no particular relationship to each other, and so there's no need to express them in outward displays of emotionality. (This is not the case for the Fe user, as their emotions are quite literally dependent on the emotions of those around them.)
It is not the case that one can straightforwardly say that Fi = male and Fe = female, although that is the general trend, despite numerous exceptions. According to random images on Google image search that had data that was probably pulled out of someone's ass, the two most common MBTI types in men are ISTJ and ESTJ (both Fi types), and in women the two most common types are ISFJ and ESFJ (both Fe types).
We can now see where the earlier surface stereotype of "Fe = herd animal" came from. If your body has told you on a literal, physical level from birth that your value is dependent on the value judgements of the people around you due to the palpable discomfort you feel at the negative emotional states of others, then the general trend will be to align your more abstract moral views with the views of those around you, in order to seek their approval and minimize internal cognitive dissonance. It takes an intelligent and independent-minded individual to develop their own independent moral thinking in these circumstances. (I'm not throwing any shade at women here -- this is absolutely how my own body works too, and I'm frankly shocked to discover that this may not be a universal human experience!)
My entire life I've been perpetually flabbergasted at how so many men could just... do things, without seeming to care much for the impact that their actions have on others. These things could be anything from aggressive sexual advances on women that any reasonable person could predict would cause them distress, or it could simply be a tendency towards perpetual rudeness and bluntness in situations where I would be instinctually driven to sugarcoat my words and attempt to elicit agreement. A generalized weakening or strengthening of the anxiety response in different individuals is probably part of the explanation, but it's not an entirely satisfactory theory on its own, as one individual may be highly neurotic about one thing but not neurotic at all about others. (It is easy to imagine, for example, a ruthless corporate attorney who ruins lives for a living while also being a huge germaphobe, or perhaps he feels palpable fear over issues of immigration.)
I never really thought about the issue that deeply; I suppose I just accepted it as a fact of life. If I had a theory for how some individuals were able to act so boldly in matters of interpersonal conflict, it would have been something like... a total obliviousness to the potential consequences of their actions? As in, they just weren't "thinking" as much as me, and if they "thought" more then they would align themselves closer to me in terms of choosing to act cautiously. Or else they had access to some infinite wellspring of courage and willpower that I did not. But this new theory seems quite a bit better: some people are literally capable of just not weighting their decisions based on the emotional states of others, even in the absence of significant stressors. (This might sound like a huge "duh" moment, but keep in mind that when I talk about "weighting" data in the decision making process, I'm talking about palpable, involuntary, bodily instincts; it's very easy to typical-mind and assume that everyone is feeling the same physical sensations as you, and they're just choosing to deal with them in different ways.)
In spite of how highly speculative this concept is, I feel like it's been so immediately applicable for me that I can't throw it out. There are certain people in my life whose behavior used to mystify me; now that I understand them as "high Fi users", it suddenly all makes sense, and I'm much more empathetic to their point of view.
Anyway, that might all sound insane because I had to cut out multiple examples and intermediary reasoning steps, but if this idea sounds interesting then I'm certainly willing to discuss it further.
(As a parting gift, I was fortunate to come across this today, although it should perhaps be renamed to "Real Fe vs Fi moment")
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
Everyone here needs to chill.
Primaprimaprima
1yr ago
Huh you preempted my post, I was coming here to essentially say the same thing:
On the rare occasions I wade back into reddit these days, I'm reminded how much lower quality the discourse there is in general. Arguing to win is the default, instead of arguing to understand. People will happily and uncharitably pounce on any minor mistake or misunderstanding they can in order to get a rhetorical edge. I've gotten old enough at this point that I just don't care anymore, as soon as I get the impression that someone is arguing to win I just nope out and let them have it.
There were no "golden days" of reddit either (aside from when TheMotte was there lol), I've been on reddit essentially since the very beginning and although it's had its ups and downs it's never reached the heights of TheMotte.
So yeah, this place is amazing, and I hope you guys keep doing what you do.
I apologize for not responding to the rest of the post, but I wanted to zero in on what seems to be a disagreement of fact rather than a disagreement of opinion.
This would seem to indicate that you already disagree with the illusionists. Illusionists believe that nothing is conscious, and nothing ever will be conscious, because consciousness does not exist. Therefore, you hold a philosophical view (that illusionism is false).
Earlier in the thread you said:
This is itself a philosophical view. There are philosophers who do believe that objective morality exists. So, it appears that you believe that your own claim is true, and their claims are false.
You previously claimed that Searle's Chinese Room does know how to speak Chinese. So you think Searle's claim that the room doesn't know how to speak Chinese is false. And you think that your own view is true.
In this post you claimed that GPT-4 had a genuine understanding of truth, and that p-zombies are an incoherent concept, both philosophical claims.
So you have a long history of making many philosophical claims. You appear to assert these claims because you believe that they are correct, because they correspond to the facts of reality; so it naturally seems to follow that you think that anyone who denies these claims would be saying something incorrect, and opposed to the facts of reality. I don't see how the concept of a "category error" enters anywhere into it. So "The only way a philosophical conjecture can be incorrect is through logical error in its formulation, or outright self-contradiction" is false. They can be incorrect because they fail to correspond to the facts of reality.
Unless you want to claim "there isn't even such a thing as a philosophical problem, because all of my beliefs are so obviously correct that any reasonable person would have to share all my beliefs, and all the opposing claims are so radically wrong that they're category errors", which is... basically just a particularly aggressive phrasing of the old "all my beliefs are obviously right and all my opponents' beliefs are obviously wrong" thing, although it would still fundamentally be in line with my original point.
The point is that you can't escape from philosophy, you're engaging in it all the time whether you realize it or not (in fact the two of us engaged in a protracted philosophical argument in that final linked post).
More options
Context Copy link