Just realized that me always having had a hard time picking a favorite movie/book/whatever has been an instance of being out of contact with my body/felt senses.
In retrospect it's kind of obvious: my thought was usually "things are good on so many different dimensions, how could I possibly ever rank them?" Like this novel might have good world-building but the other one has better characterization so how can I tell which one is better.
Which I now recognize as an instance of the classic "I don't trust/have access to an intuitive judgment of this, so I want some explicit algorithm that lets me make a rational decision" source of paralysis.
Especially since there was a tinge of defiant pride in it: others just unthinkingly name their favorite thing on gut feel, while I'm rational and recognize that these are incomparable qualities, thus am too good to think fallaciously and name a favorite anything.
(In my experience, if you ever find yourself thinking "I'm too rational to X", then you're probably looking at a defense mechanism.)
I realized this a moment ago when I was asked to name my favorite female scientist, and I started my usual "I'm bad at naming favorite-". Then suddenly a particular friend popped into mind, and just intuitively felt like she fit all aspects of that specification.
I couldn't pick a favorite by conscious deliberation, but if I let my subconscious sift through all the data about different people and let it express the judgment as an intuitive sensation, then the answer was quick and obvious.
To add: also sometimes one may be afraid of their intuitive answer because they want a more socially justifiable one.
I asked my mind for my favorite movie and it came back with Star Wars: A New Hope.
I was kind of like, ehh, really? but looks like it's pretty convinced of it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Oof. I was today years old when I realized that _none of the people who ever hurt me did it because there was anything fundamentally wrong with me_.
I don't mean that as in "realized intellectually", I mean as in "realized emotionally so that in any shame-tinged memory that I can think of, the other person decomposes to their inner pain and what they did to me in reaction to that pain and it's obviously not really about me".
So I was doing a lot of meditation / parts work today and came to an early experience where I thought dad didn't care about how he made me feel, and then that got juxtaposed with later memories of how he obviously did care and OH at that moment he just didn't realize how I felt.
@nickcammarata Thank you making the possibility of that state this explicit. Now I'm motivated to get there as well.
@nickcammarata Initial stab at this: what's my first reaction if I imagine myself in such a state?
Parts start piping up with objections. Saying "you don't deserve that", "what would [person] think", etc. So one of the steps: get familiar with & address those objections.
@nickcammarata Another issue: what would it feel like in practice? This is often one of my problems directing metta at myself: who/where is the "me" I should orient it at?
But could work at it from other direction. "You don't deserve it" also implies a me. How does _that_ feeling manifest?
Some emotion/trauma stuff claims that things like blocked emotions manifest as muscle tension, so that you are subconsciously tensing particular muscles in order to block yourself from feeling something or doing a particular thing. Now why would this be necessary?
Ideomotor theory proposes that the mental representation of an action causes the action to happen. For example, as I consciously think about writing the rest of this sentence, the thought of carrying out that action is translated to a set of motor commands to do so.
But what if my sentence is bad? Suppose that the thought occurs to me to say something offensive that will get me in trouble. One part of my brain generates this thought, a second part notices this would have a bad consequence. What can the second part do?
I generally like how I feel after I've done metta (loving-kindness meditation) "right", but I find I often have self-centered motives sneak into it that make it hard.
E.g. if I'm sending metta to a friend, I might hope that they are happy because I like it when people around me are happy. "Be happy, because that will be nicer for me!"
Also, just imagining someone happy makes me feel safe and then my focus starts alternating between the feeling of safety and the loving-kindness. The safety feels more appealing, but doesn't translate to longer-term satisfaction the way that focusing on loving-kindness does.
One of today's papers: Sinking In: The Peripheral Baldwinisation of Human Cognition. Cecilia Heyes, Nick Chater & Dominic Michael Dwyer. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2020. cell.com/trends/cogniti…
Some theories have proposed that humans have evolved to experience some stimuli (e.g. snakes, spiders) as more potentially frightening, so that a fear for these entities is learned faster than a fear for more neutral things. E.g. evpsych proposed "fear modules" for these.
However, research suggests that rather than "the fear system" itself having innate biases towards picking up particular kinds of fears, humans are evolutionarily biased towards paying extra *attention* to things like spiders and snakes.