211–220 of 370 posts
Also I look at everything through the filter of evolutionary psychology. I call it "you in the grass" and mentally take myself all the way down to it's just you and your tribe in the grass, you're tired and hungry, theres nowhere to sleep and everything is dangerous. Then I analyse things through that filter first and slowly add the additional layers of society back on.
My top 3, in order of how I try to apply them (i.e., if 1 doesn't help, move on to 2, etc.). I learned these all from reading various philosophy works, by the way, so perhaps cognitive hack #1 should be "read books". 1) Suspension of judgement (from Sextus Empiricus, Zhuang Zi, Ecclesiastes): avoid forming an opinion at all about things that are not evident. The way I do this is by thinking through an opposing argume…
At times the process of taking a neutral approach and/or vocalizing that neutrality demonstrates weakness. "Plan X makes sense because of A and B, but it does have this trade off D. That said, Plan Y could make sense if we really value D." In meetings, another person often lays out a single POV strongly and wins. Ideally, this opinion is strong because it's well thought out (and bias-adjusted), but sometimes it's strong simply because it's stated as such. "Plan Y is right. Because D, which I didn't even consider until now. "
Here, one would hope the group or group leader checks and balances this type of behavior so that a single biased-person doesn't carry a generally clear-minded group, but of course that doesn't always happen.
Considering one's biases is a very good thing, but I wonder if the pragmatics of group dynamics render it something good for the soul, but poor for action.
If you want to hack your brain try Neuro-Linguistic Programming, it describes the OS of the mind. A good book to get started is, "Get the Life You Want: The Secrets to Quick and Lasting Life Change with Neuro-Linguistic Programming" by Richard Bandler.
I learned the raw power of metaphor/analogy from that. Hands down that proved to be the single biggest tool. There are like 12 patterns of speech if I recall correctly in that book and about 4 of them are just insanely useful tactics when you need them.
I think selectively chunking up/down was another quite effective one to steer conversations.
Eliciting someone's heirarchy of values is also a super interesting and very revealing technique. You can use that to get at what the actual objection to something is. It's fairly easy to do too.
The 4th one I found applicable in daily life escapes me. But that whole book is very practical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Initial reading * eikasia -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eikasia * pistis -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistis * dianoia -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianoia * episteme -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episteme * techne -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techne * phronesis -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudence (latin: prudence) * noesis -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous Further reading: https://en.wiki…
Sorry I was ambiguous in my first post. I meant to ask for reading material that synthesizes these different individual topics together into a more modern taxonomy of concepts that don’t need any reliance on these existing taxonomic terms at all. I’m not seeking background reading on these concepts as they are already bundled into their own taxonomy, that’s the thing I find unhelpful and am seeking to avoid in favor…
Modern philosophers tend to be extremely dense and difficult to read. What I'd recommend is starting from the beginning - key works of Plato, such as Apology (the trial and death of Socrates), Republic (an ideal government, and Symposium (a friendly conversation about the topics of the day). These are all quite readable and enjoyable, and frankly as good as or better than most modern works.
It’s a specific kind of feeling, when my brain starts protecting itself against information that proves me wrong. Kind of like a real threat. It feels like I’m under attack, and I’m losing. I get subtly upset (because I’m a know-it-all and I want to be right), which is itself quickly reframed as anger, probably by that same mechanism. Probably much easier to admit that I’m angry because of “that guy!” than that I’m gonna be a crybaby because I’m wrong. But them’s the breaks, son.
I find it hard, and I wish I could say it gets easier, but it doesn’t. It sucks being wrong, and it’s humiliating.
I’d describe it as: at any moment you feel a flare of anger, try and ask yourself, what if you were wrong? If you find it hard to even engage in the thought experiment, that’s probably it. On a normal day you’d have no problem doing it. Try it now: it’s just a thought. Try it when you’re upset: it’s practically impossible.
My top 3, in order of how I try to apply them (i.e., if 1 doesn't help, move on to 2, etc.). I learned these all from reading various philosophy works, by the way, so perhaps cognitive hack #1 should be "read books". 1) Suspension of judgement (from Sextus Empiricus, Zhuang Zi, Ecclesiastes): avoid forming an opinion at all about things that are not evident. The way I do this is by thinking through an opposing argume…
These are forms of adjusting for bias and one should be cautious when they (or anyone) think they're good at accounting for them. That said, there are times we do feel justified in our decision because we feel we have adequately looked at "all sides." At times the process of taking a neutral approach and/or vocalizing that neutrality demonstrates weakness. "Plan X makes sense because of A and B, but it does have this…
Maybe that’s because, it seems like the practical reality of discussing ones attempts to be bias-free always comes off as disengenuous no matter how genuine those attempts may be. So fuck it man. Embrace bias :)
For routine things this is a trivial question, but more often than I care to admit I'll discover I don't have an answer. Coming up with the answer doesn't mean my thought is rational (humans rationalize way too much), but it does help anchor the belief to OTHER things, which I believe makes me more open to change - it builds in a separation between the belief itself and my self-value, instead attaching it to the causality, making me more willing to follow through if the initial data IS proven wrong.
Of course I don't know if this actually works to make me more open to change, but I feel better for having tried and there definitely have been issues where I did change my stance after the assumed data wasn't the real data - I just can't know if I would have change my mind without this exercise.
I was surprised at how effective it was at both small tasks (choose a smart thermostat), and complex tasks (prepare for a trade show).
I wrote it for myself, it runs on my home server, so I can't give you a link yet... so here's a few screenshots. Python, Google Search API, some basic NLP.
1. Hanlon's razor - we should not attribute to malice that which is more easily explained by stupidity.
2. Reversion to the Mean - after reading Thinking Fast and Slow, the part about reversion to the mean really made me think about how people view others in terms of how the behave day to day.
One other thing I tend to think about is that everyone is fighting their own battles, so try to be kind to others in how you interpret their choices and actions.
My hacks: * Productivity: every day do at least one measurable thing that puts forward your project, even if very small. * Expectations: don't care about the outcome of your work, as long as you tried to put a lot of good efforts into it. Focus on trying to do the thing instead of focusing on the result it will have, or what people will think. * Stress: instead of being preoccupied about things, try to take care of t…