> The good news for these internal interruptions is that it should be much easier to control them.
For a long-time meditator, this is comedic gold. Just control your internal interruptions, stay focused. That's all, eh? Hehehehehe
For a long-time meditator, this is comedic gold. Just control your internal interruptions, stay focused. That's all, eh? Hehehehehe
I'll admit I also had a chuckle at the expense of the parent post here (I'm sorry - the rest of this post isn't meant to pick on you or describe you specifically). I think this there is a lesson in here somewhere on the intellectual confidence that comes with being good at one thing, and the silliness that can ensue when it might not translate elsewhere. Not in even necessarily in a malicious or foolish way, but in a "it can catch you even when you think you're accounting for it" kind of way.
If not empathy for the sake of moral reasons or even good vibes, I wish that we could at least convince the "I read the abstract of 3 papers / I read a gwern post about this / I accomplished something hard in my life so I know everything" crowd of the utility of empathy as a tool for exploring your "unknown unknowns". You'd think that more people would be interested in a dialectic (in the classical philosophy sense) discussion as a cooperative if conflicting search for truth. This is harder to do if you systematically overestimate yourself and underestimate others. Of course as I write this I'm thinking of all the times I didn't practice what I'm preaching now.
Do you believe you’ve demonstrated “the utility of empathy” in your post? — or even your interpretation of what was said?
- - -
> Of course as I write this I'm thinking of all the times I didn't practice what I'm preaching now.
> Not in even necessarily in a malicious or foolish way, but in a "it can catch you even when you think you're accounting for it" kind of way.
> This is harder to do if you systematically overestimate yourself and underestimate others.
Mm.
It isn’t that I’m perfect, or infallible, or even immune to frustration and the occasional bout of snark. It doesn’t mean that I’m a “better” person. It also doesn’t mean that I have to accept every viewpoint as true or equally likely. Nor does it mean that I can’t criticize. Nor that I can’t take a side on a considered opinion. It doesn’t mean that this always leads to perfect results or that I’m always successful. It doesn’t mean that it’s a perfect heuristic. It’s only one more tool in a toolbox.
I think it is undervalued - and sometimes angrily pushed back against - in this community, maybe because it gets dismissed as “feelings” (and not “reason”). The reason I think this is that I've encountered here the “experienced expert with healthy self doubt versus passionate amateur with little self awareness” dynamic in action over and over again.
There’s an ongoing, half century current in the field trying to examine whether reasoning may often involve a heuristic-based, adaptive process based on incomplete and imperfect information, and less so something resembling a pure application of formal logic.
In this universe, cognitive biases extend more clearly to things like which facts you consider as possible at all in the first place and by which methods you weight them as more or less likely or influential, as opposed to merely fallacies of formal logic that we’re most often exposed to. So, the thinking goes, it can help to try to fill some gaps in this area by trying to increase the breadth of what you’re exposing yourself to and allowing yourself to take into account.
In my experience this can be a frustrating and exhausting concept to contend with as a person. You certainly can tu quoque yourself - or me, like you and others in this thread have - into oblivion. After all, what business do I have talking about cognitive biases if I've been shown to be subject the very same, and am not an expert in it? I don't know where the line is but I'm not certain it makes the concept less helpful outright. At the very least I don't think I'm claiming something that'd be considered very controversial as far as I'm aware.
Your interpretation of sanderjd's comment was uncharitable and incorrect.[1] Saying you had a chuckle at their expense was condescending and added nothing.
zmgsabst's reply to you was rude. But it was a challenge to reflect. No one suggested you thought you were perfect. No one suggested your stumble disproved the utility of empathy. You wrote paragraphs against straw men.
Please receive criticism from others as you want others to receive criticism from you.
Which parts were incorrect, and how?
> Saying you had a chuckle at their expense was condescending and added nothing.
Are you referring to your model of reality or all models of reality?
I wonder if it's really as simple as your theory though...I don't disagree as a generalization, but perhaps certain classes of internal issues can be bypassed/moderated by external stimulus?
This is getting well outside the initial discussion (in some ways, but not all), but it's interesting.
Say that I'm working on some fairly big fairly sprawling and cross-cutting effort, and I'm having trouble getting it done efficiently because I keep going down unnecessary refactoring rabbit holes, or getting distracted while waiting for end-to-end tests to run. I can (and do) experience these issues with a wide open schedule, notifications silent, and a home office with zero external interruptions. But now say I am getting frequent high-urgency pings about various other things that I need to research and dig into. When I pop each of those off the stack, I'm just back to my rabbit-hole strewn slow-to-test mess, but now it's just later in the day with less time before I have to pick up the kids or before the next scheduled meeting, or whatever else. I'm still dealing with all the same internal issues, just with less time and more anxiety.
But it's very clear that I did not make this point well at all in my original post.
Emphasis mine:
> Some internal monkeys can be tamed with simple habits.
If you dismiss the advice because it's not universally applicable, I think you do yourself and others a disservice.
I have some very bad ADHD that I have worked for years to control (using tools ranging from medication to meditation/mindfulness, etc). I fully agree that the monkeys in your brain can't be fully tamed, but surely you would agree that there is at least something that most people can do to improve things even a little bit? It's definitely hard, but not impossible.
When I was a child, world and humans in it were so simple. Good old times, at least relatively speaking.
No one (other than possibly the sprinkling of humans who have achieved enlightenment or someone temporarily under a heavy dose of psycho-motor stimulants) can fully control themselves internally. Minor, fleeting internal control occurs frequently. Being able to sum up the strength to initiate the process of planning and acting to perform directed speech to control Bob would be an example of this (and appropriate for your additive example) but the full state of internal control required to disconnect your senses and observation from Bob's incoming external interferences without impacting your own faculties or performance is a rare kind, or 'level' of internal control that many do not possess. Interestingly, this is all derivative of personality.
By the way, I'm not trying to say that this is always happening in my work, or even frequently, but this is an actual bad outcome that I experience from time to time. I currently have, and have been fortunate in my career to usually have very good management and teammates who are very respectful of each other's focus time.
~It's literally that easy~
Are you saying you have more control of what other people do than your own mind? If not, what are you objecting to in saying that it’s easier to control yourself than others?
I’m really struggling not to see your comment as living down to stereotypes: vapidly smug.
The person whose comment you're replying to was probably highlighting the fact that this process is not as predictable as the parent comment alluded to.
That makes it easier to maintain your focus, as the person originally said. A few cute euphemisms don’t mitigate that demonstrated reality; and so I’m left confused still —
You’re mocking someone pointing out fact with a quip.
I was recently at a meditation retreat, and a group of meditators much more advanced than me universally agreed that an apt description of their minds was "like a box of ferrets".
The illusion that you control your chain of thought vanishes pretty quickly with meditation. The reality is that your attention shifts rapidly (especially between different senses) and that most of those shifts aren't under direct conscious control.
Somehow we mistake the sieve for free will, or that it's even a fully conscious mechanism. But it "just happens". It's very strange stuff.
That's almost never the case with internal struggles. You can't negotiate your ADHD away. There's no mental "ANC headphones" equivalent to shut the bees buzzing in your head up. You're lucky if the problem is something that responds to pharmacotherapy. That means there's actually something you can do to fix it that has even a snowball's chance in hell of working.
But things like negotiating across a power imbalance, finding and switching managers, teams, groups, switching jobs entirely... these are not trivial things! These are also extremely stressful things for which I don't think the word "trivial" gets anywhere near being an appropriate word choice.