The most important concept I’ve found in the philosophy of flourishing (aka psychology) is 𝗳𝗶𝘅𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

Other terms for this:

tanha, end-gaining, resistance, avoidance, being ‘grabby’, clinging, stasis, compulsion

You can be fixated 𝘵𝘰 or fixated 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺-𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮.

1/ Fixation is when you don’t want to look at something.

Often, this results in redirecting attention to something else — typically so fast that you don’t register it.

(Since if you register it, you might look!)

2/

There is a skill of how to access information from your emotions.

Most people don’t know how.

They literally cannot read their feelings, in the same way that illiterates cannot read words.

Intellectuals are often illiterate *plus* deny it’s possible to learn to read.

1/

https://twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/1716291787600412953

I learnt this skill even exists as a thing in 2018.

(CFAR introduced Gendlin Focusing, then I heard the body is practically relevant to emotions ~somehow~, and that intellectuals like me have a blindspot about that. Humph!)

Sucked at it for 2 years.

2/

Never mind particular frameworks, what are some the most fundamental concepts and skills for happiness and free thought?

Thread on some I’ve found
👇

[P.S. You can see why it’s hard to claim one framework will solve all your problems.] 1. Ability to think any thought, rather than have your mind flinch away from it.

Found in…
- Buddhism: equanimity
- Art of Accomplishment: impartiality; non-resistance
- Alexander Technique: expanded awareness
- Karl Popper: non-authoritarianism
- TCS: non-coercion

A lot of people think introspection is unusually error-prone, subject to confirmation bias and making up stories, with no way of being verified or refuted.

This is false—if you have the right instruments.

1/ There are multiple ways to verify/refute introspective conjectures.

The most foundational is Gendlin Focusing.

(It can be learnt in 70mins via the audiobook Focusing by Eugene Gendlin. Though it may take some practice. The book includes a guided session.)

2/

Alexander Technique is simply an approach (really it’s a set of techniques) for getting out of being stuck in your head.

1. Gets you out of being stuck (thinking ground to a halt, or tunnel vision)

2. Gets you out of your head and back into the world (feel alive, expansive)

1/ Traditional Alexander Technique does this via freeing up your body*:

When your body is tense, it’s not just doing that by itself; 𝘺𝘰𝘶 are tensing your body.

So the body is an easy place to see if you’re successful doing the free-and-alive thing, and to work fine-grain.

2/

One of the themes of this account is:

How to get unstuck

🚸 Children are creative, fast-learning, alive and vividly present.

Something happens which shuts those down as we enter adulthood, so only a small number of people make progress.

I claim we all can.

1/ How?

The first thing I found was philosophy: Popperian epistemology, and in particular the work of @DavidDeutschOxf.

It was a powerful framework that seemed to melt problems.

It brought the clarity of reason, the hope of optimism, and the virtue of human progress.

2/

⚡️🐭 RAT FEST 🐀⚡️
(crit rat weekend round 2!)

The second critical/pan-rationalist weekend is this summer and I’d love to meet you there!

WHEN: June 30-July 2 🌞

WHERE: Philadelphia, USA 🇺🇸

WHAT: Firey discussion, friendly hangouts, food and fun!

eventbrite.com/e/the-rat-fest… Welcoming crit rats, meta-rationalists, Bayesian rationalists, and any other breed of rat 🐀💗
(As long as you don’t gnaw on Logan’s upholstery.)

Details and tickets:
lesswrong.com/events/JGf5RYq…

On naval gazing --

We weren't meant to constantly be thinking about our internal state.

Emotions are meant to move through us and help guide our actions, while our mind is freed up to think about the world outside. Humans, uniquely, build sky-scrapers.

We see the world and think about how to manipulate it, how to shape it.

It's the mind getting caught up in how our internal state 'should' be that causes diversions that the mind thinks is its job to fix.

Which is what caused the problem!

Starting to think the meaning crisis is fake, and it’s more a coercion crisis.

Specifically:

Now that we have more freedom than ever before, anti-rational memes must resort to more insidious forms of coercion. Obvious modes of coercion are being replaced (sublimated?) by obscure ones.

In this age of the whole world at our fingertips, we’re supposed to be free, happy, to listen to our feelings, to do what we want.

So how can controlling, anti-rational memes survive?

They adapt.

The ‘Safe Uncertainty Fallacy’ is a misunderstanding of the argument being made here.

I think this fallacy is in fact extremely rare, and the actual position is something like the below. 🧵

[context:
astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mr-tries-the… ] 1. One can always construct a possible scenario of future doom.

Therefore, any given instance of this kind of argument is a bad explanation.

(For the same reason it doesn’t make sense to listen to each religion that says you’ll go to Hell unless you listen to *their* God.)

“The speed at which this evolutionary process can evolve is bounded by the variants that you allow.

If you suppress variants, you move very slowly. Which makes it very controllable. But it also makes it crystallised and static”

@BasedBeffJezos timestamp:
“There’s a trend towards centralising, for ease of control, and suppression of variants.”

“Essentially, Effective Acceleration is about—it is somewhat libertarian—it’s about encouraging variants and experimentation, and building a better future, but not about top-down control.”

On my meta-ironic alt @metaLulie, I said:

"this account is not serious. it has no pride and no shame."

I was asked: is the account *sincere*?

The answer is that it uses a different epistemology, which doesn't include that concept.

🧵 1/

https://twitter.com/metaLulie/status/1596478667374624768

2/
On "meta-irony is used as a defence for ideas they're insecure about", I wrote:

@ToKTeacher I'm curious how you see critical rationalism fitting into this article (which says there have been waves of spiritualism followed by rationalism followed by spiritualism etc.)—is there something more enduring about it, or another wave coming?

ecosophia.net/blogs-and-essa… There's a lot of detail of rationalist and magical traditions coming in waves in the article.

I'm wondering if critical rationalism could be the first rationalism to reach escape velocity and unite itself with spiritual traditions without sacrifice.

Concluding paragraphs:

“What we’re doing is we’re using the intellect to help us try to understand how we will *feel* at the end of the decision.”

— @artofaccomp Joe Hudson
timestamp: overcast.fm/+pyUGO43A8/04:…

This is counter-intuitive and sounds subjectivist, but isn’t. It’s fallibilist. Emotions are ideas. They refer to mental content.

We don’t have access to the ultimate truth, we only have our best ideas so far.

Emotions are our compass for what we think is best, including subconsciously.

🧵 Thread of threads on boundaries 🙅‍♀️

0/ 1/

https://twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/1204382845013282821

“I need to get better” is meta.

It’s double-counting. On the psychological level (rather than abstract philosophy), the idea that you must improve is a misconception:

The reason I think parenting philosophy is important—and in particular Taking Children Seriously’s philosophy—is that humanity’s flourishing depends on it.

1/

[QT for context]

https://twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/1603671227884871681

Currently, we have a system and culture that impairs ~everyone and all but destroys creative thought in most people.

Everyone at birth can be an Einstein, a Musk, a Conway, whatever.

But most people don’t make it to adulthood able to follow their interests.

Why?

2/

@Meaningness @DavidDeutschOxf Both of you and Popper say something like “the meaning of life is individual/what you make it/everywhere, and discovered through trying stuff”.

Why isn’t the meaning of life objective, and something like “creative [uncoercive] problem-solving”? @Meaningness What makes “creative error-correction/problem-solving/learning/growth/progress” (or whatever word doesn’t have the negative ‘fixing’ quality) a bad candidate for meaning of life?

@DavidDeutschOxf 👆That + why not objective?

Trying to rekindle a feeling of wonder by buying a t-shirt and some coasters of an anime you watched as a child.

It makes you smile, but you can tell something is missing. It's not the same. It's not all hollow, but…

Will the world ever feel as magical as it did back then?

1/ Too late? No longer novel? Maybe that kind of joy is childish. Maybe it's only accessible to young people who still have neruo-plasticity.

You try to find the feeling elsewhere. Trying is effortful. Wasn't it easy and natural before? Things take your attention, but briefly.

2/

In general I want to learn from people who have the qualities I want.

I judge ideas by their people: do they seem like they’ve got the inexplicit details figured out?

Do their actions match their ideas?

(This mostly applies to relational and psychological ideas.) Ideas can also be thought of as having an independent logic from the people holding them.

Someone with a bad worldview might have a good idea.

Someone mean might have stumbled on a good worldview.

Wanting is one of the most important and underrated human experiences. Wants are our compass.

Hence KonMari starts with designing ideal life. You don’t start with throwing away stuff.

So it’s a little misleading to say if you get rid of all hangups, traumas, fixations, etc., the good thing will do itself — it will *if* you let yourself have wants.