It's only in the past couple of years that I've started to understand what I believe in. Before I had all these ideas and aspirations that I just absorbed from the culture around me. But culture, as Terrence McKenna says, is not your friend. To say that I was liberal or conservative or capitalist or critical of capitalism or whatever—I look back and find it so funny that I could be so earnest about those views because my understanding of them was so shallow.
> But we don't like to believe that our ideas about society, our political beliefs, our personal aspirations are similarly inherited and thoughtless.
I've come around to a similar way of thinking over the past few years, and now that I'm aware of this possibility, I'm dumbfounded by how absolutely confident people can be when they espouse... well, any belief that they hold. Have you heard of The Münchhausen Trilemma? I think it's relevant here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
> In recent years I've gradually been overtaken by the idea that I can be most useful by being clear.
I'm glad that you think this. I'm always surprised and annoyed when I come across someone on the internet who clearly believes they have something important to say... but seemingly doesn't even bother trying to make their reasoning clear. If someone thinks they know something important and want to spread that knowledge, shouldn't they at least try to explain clearly? So many comments on the internet just boil down to "no, you're an idiot", even when they're phrased politely.
I'm currently of the opinion that if you want to persuade somebody of something, you need to both understand (or successfully guess) the relevant things they already believe, and then demonstrate that what you're saying follows directly from those things. Or at the very least, doesn't contradict them. Maybe this isn't enough for everyone in every circumstance, but it seems far better to me than the empty assertions of "I'm right and you're wrong" that I see everywhere. Of course, I have no idea how to persuade anyone else of this...
And even if we are communicating our ideas clearly, even if people believe in us, we are still dependent on people to be open and receptive to our ideas, anddd interpret them in the way we intended. Hard.
I’ve been prompted to think of the etymology of “understand” lately.
It’s a funny word. Synonymous to comprehend, grasp, get. But somehow different because of the “under” part implying some kind of spacial relationship.
Maybe when we only believe something without really understanding, we are like on top of the belief. And it moves us. And sometimes we fall off.
And when we understand, we are below the belief. And we can hold up it’s “weight”. Move it around and look at it from different angles and apply it appropriately.
It reminds me of the story of the Centipede with 100 legs, that was once asked to explain its walking process. So it thought hard, trying to put its process into words, and found it couldn't walk in again.
Being clear is extremely important. We think in random bursts of ideas and images, that we must find the words to carry over into the minds of our listeners.
People who learn to be communicate clearly are usually made leaders so there is a lot of incentive to hone this skill.
I've taken to writing more as a way to improve my communication. Writing long-form letters instead of short tweets, essays when expressing ideas, etc, can go a long way towards this effort.
One thing I'd like to share from a piece I have read (can't recall exactly where) is that because scientists and researchers tend to work in silos, making an already complicated world even harder to decipher because researchers themselves don't (and usually can't) take into consideration the larger context and affecting factors
"what I want most is to be a good tool or vessel for the few things I do understand and believe in" - I really resonated with this. Seeing tidbits of you making sense of yourself helps me do the same.
What's the difference between sharing your core beliefs with an AI and a snooty kid? *shrugs* Not much. They both lack the site-specific context that you have.
ELI5? Lowest common denominator?
Analogy is a great tool to teach a new concept. (association)
What does it mean? I'm just throwing my thought forms at you. I hope they are generative to new insights.
Another commenter mentioned that leaders are effective communicators – this was very generative for myself. I feel like good ones can hold space for people of varying levels of frequency - high and low. Site-specific completeness. Usually T-shaped people?
The concept of simplicity goes through many teachings reaching from Buddhism, Taoism, to Confucianism.
Being able to clearly transfer an idea towards other people is a skill that requires lifelong commitment and nourishment.
Then there is the aspect of imagination. Technorationalism stripped us of a large part of our imagination of change. How could our socio- political situation be different than it currently is? Could our current idea of democracy not be the end of human political evolution but just the beginning? Is the concept of money and property really the best way to divide our system?
Clarity of thought is the greatest gift.
> But we don't like to believe that our ideas about society, our political beliefs, our personal aspirations are similarly inherited and thoughtless.
I've come around to a similar way of thinking over the past few years, and now that I'm aware of this possibility, I'm dumbfounded by how absolutely confident people can be when they espouse... well, any belief that they hold. Have you heard of The Münchhausen Trilemma? I think it's relevant here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
> In recent years I've gradually been overtaken by the idea that I can be most useful by being clear.
I'm glad that you think this. I'm always surprised and annoyed when I come across someone on the internet who clearly believes they have something important to say... but seemingly doesn't even bother trying to make their reasoning clear. If someone thinks they know something important and want to spread that knowledge, shouldn't they at least try to explain clearly? So many comments on the internet just boil down to "no, you're an idiot", even when they're phrased politely.
I'm currently of the opinion that if you want to persuade somebody of something, you need to both understand (or successfully guess) the relevant things they already believe, and then demonstrate that what you're saying follows directly from those things. Or at the very least, doesn't contradict them. Maybe this isn't enough for everyone in every circumstance, but it seems far better to me than the empty assertions of "I'm right and you're wrong" that I see everywhere. Of course, I have no idea how to persuade anyone else of this...
really liked this, and also wanted to pop by and say that i think the artwork you picked for this piece suits it perfectly :)
And even if we are communicating our ideas clearly, even if people believe in us, we are still dependent on people to be open and receptive to our ideas, anddd interpret them in the way we intended. Hard.
I’ve been prompted to think of the etymology of “understand” lately.
It’s a funny word. Synonymous to comprehend, grasp, get. But somehow different because of the “under” part implying some kind of spacial relationship.
Maybe when we only believe something without really understanding, we are like on top of the belief. And it moves us. And sometimes we fall off.
And when we understand, we are below the belief. And we can hold up it’s “weight”. Move it around and look at it from different angles and apply it appropriately.
> Distillation is harder than creation.
It reminds me of the story of the Centipede with 100 legs, that was once asked to explain its walking process. So it thought hard, trying to put its process into words, and found it couldn't walk in again.
Being clear is extremely important. We think in random bursts of ideas and images, that we must find the words to carry over into the minds of our listeners.
People who learn to be communicate clearly are usually made leaders so there is a lot of incentive to hone this skill.
I've taken to writing more as a way to improve my communication. Writing long-form letters instead of short tweets, essays when expressing ideas, etc, can go a long way towards this effort.
Thanks for sharing.
I loved this piece. Your writing has amazing rhythm, it just flows so nicely in my head
Excellent writing!
One thing I'd like to share from a piece I have read (can't recall exactly where) is that because scientists and researchers tend to work in silos, making an already complicated world even harder to decipher because researchers themselves don't (and usually can't) take into consideration the larger context and affecting factors
This is brilliant! You must be close to understand "understanding." Thanks for helping us in the journey ☺️
"what I want most is to be a good tool or vessel for the few things I do understand and believe in" - I really resonated with this. Seeing tidbits of you making sense of yourself helps me do the same.
I loved this piece. Making some kind of understanding accessible, to others but also to myself is possibly what I love most about writing.
What's the difference between sharing your core beliefs with an AI and a snooty kid? *shrugs* Not much. They both lack the site-specific context that you have.
ELI5? Lowest common denominator?
Analogy is a great tool to teach a new concept. (association)
-----------------------------------------------------
What does it mean? I'm just throwing my thought forms at you. I hope they are generative to new insights.
Another commenter mentioned that leaders are effective communicators – this was very generative for myself. I feel like good ones can hold space for people of varying levels of frequency - high and low. Site-specific completeness. Usually T-shaped people?
Thank you for writing this.
The concept of simplicity goes through many teachings reaching from Buddhism, Taoism, to Confucianism.
Being able to clearly transfer an idea towards other people is a skill that requires lifelong commitment and nourishment.
Then there is the aspect of imagination. Technorationalism stripped us of a large part of our imagination of change. How could our socio- political situation be different than it currently is? Could our current idea of democracy not be the end of human political evolution but just the beginning? Is the concept of money and property really the best way to divide our system?
Always amazed by the quality of your posts.
Bit of a random comment on 1% of the substance, just want to say
>Turns out it’s just really, really hard to be right about things. Understanding is so rare
... This is what I think of as being the central lesson or primary takeaway from rationalism online, from lesswrong.com and slatestarcodex.