#Socrates basically said this first. He called it "double ignorance" when someone doesn't even know that they don't know something. Double ignorance about the most important things in life was the main problem his philosophy sought to remedy, through the famous Socratic method.
Socrates said double ignorance requires a kind of intellectual arrogance or conceit, i.e., (mistakenly) believing that we know something which in fact we do not know. He thought it could best be exposed by certain questions that highlight gaps and contradictions in our thinking.
Normal ignorance is when you don't know what, e.g., "justice" means but recognize and admit your own ignorance, so want to learn.
Double ignorance is when you don't even realize that you're ignorant of the nature of justice but conceitedly assume that you're an expert.
Normal ignorance is healthy if it motivates us to educate ourselves and learn more.
Double ignorance is always toxic, as it closes our minds to learning anything of value.
Example: Joe Rogan has double ignorance about vaccine research. Lacking any education in medical research methods he doesn't realize when he's making the most basic errors of interpretation and even when his mistakes are pointed out by guests he still doesn't understand.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵 Thread on why a lot of self-improvement trends are actually just toxic BS in disguise. First of all, I love self-help, I'm a cognitive psychotherapist, I've spent decades studying self-help trends, and a lot of it is good and benefits people, but a lot is bad and harms them.
There are two basic problems, or illusions, with self-help that lead people astray. 1. Some strategies make people feel better temporarily but harm them longer-term, 2. Some strategies do help them but in trivial areas, leading them to neglect addressing more critical problems.
These are compounded by the fact that most of us have blind spots for our own character flaws and are therefore poor judges of the areas in which we need to improve ourselves. Depending too much on self-help can therefore become a way of avoiding feedback from real people.
I would assume there's a reason why Will Smith flew off the handle. I doubt it's because of the pretty mild jokes Chris Rock made in the past. Maybe he was having a bad day, despite winning an Oscar.
His reaction highlights the problem with anger. He lost sight of the context of his actions and their likely consequences and became narrowly focused on what was happening in front of him in that moment.
He forgot he'd made similar jokes on television himself in the past, poking fun at baldness. He forgot that he agreed to go to the Oscars knowing in advance that guests are expected to allow the hosts to make fun of them.
🧵 Thread about anxiety. (I specialized in treating anxiety as a cognitive therapist.) I firmly believe, based on 20+ years of experience, that the most basic problem with anxiety is that our society does not have adequate words/concepts to understand how our emotions work.
Our "folk psychology", the concepts we all use in daily life, is not fit for purpose in this regard. Two main reasons. 1. We fail to distinguish between different forms that anxiety can take, whereas the first thing competent researchers/clinicians do is a diagnosis.
Panic attacks are different from animal phobias, and different from PTSD anxiety, and different from generalized anxiety, or social anxiety, and so on. Different types of anxiety function differently and respond to different treatments. Most people are confused about this.
I've been writing about #Stoicism and #psychotherapy for nearly a quarter of a century now. I started by giving talks on Stoicism at conferences for psychotherapists and discussing it with student counsellors, therapists, coaches, etc., on the training programs I ran in the UK.
My first book on Stoicism was meant to be an overview of the history of its influence on modern psychotherapists, for academics and clinicians. Instead, it became more widely read among nonacademics and "laypersons". Stoicism then became more popular, partly due to Stoic Week.
Authors like Bill Irvine, Ryan Holiday, and Massimo Pigliucci were reaching a wider audience of nonacademics. Communities for Stoicism formed on the Internet. Stoicism became a "thing" again. But something did NOT happen. To my surprise, psychotherapists largely ignored it.
In The Meditations, Marcus thanks the gods he didn't fall under the spell of a Sophist when he first began to study philosophy. He must surely have in mind Herodes Atticus, who was by far the most famous Sophist of the era, and a family friend.
Herodes was raised in the household of his maternal grandfather, alongside Marcus' mother, Lucilla. However, he was in Athens when Marcus' higher education in rhetoric began, although he was appointed his Greek rhetoric tutor somewhat later.
Although Herodes was a family friend, arguably the leading intellectual of his day, and the most famous of his tutors, Marcus doesn't mention him once in The Meditations. Instead of Herodes, he praises more obscure teachers, including an unnamed tutor who was probably a slave.
Here's a quick thread about how we know when The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius was written because although generally people get this right sometimes they're way off with the dates...
First of all, a note of caution, we don't know for certain that the whole text was composed around the same time, but I think it probably was. Marcus was a diligent student of philosophy and rhetoric and enjoyed writing. I doubt he'd have taken many years over these notes.
He mentions waiting for a baby to emerge from his wife's womb. Faustina's last child is believed to have been born 170 CE, so if taken literally this part is from 169/170 CE.