5 ms·

It's a good filter to cut through distracting BS that would otherwise bog you down. If you're surviving and thriving, your worldview is not so bad. A worldvie

It's a good filter to cut through distracting BS that would otherwise bog you down. If you're surviving and thriving, your worldview is not so bad. A worldview is a paradigm of reality constructed over decades. It makes sense to require higher standards of evidence for apparent exceptions to the hard won rules eked out from decades of observation and insight.

dredmorbius 7y ago
I'm increasingly convinced that worldviews / mental models are not simply modeling devices, but information rejection tools. Borrowing from Clay Shirkey's "It's not information overload, it's filter failure", the world is a surprisingly information-rich space, and humans (or any other information-processing system, biological or otherwise) simply aren't equipped to deal with more than a minuscule fraction of it. We aim for a useful fraction. It paints an incomplete, but useful picture. Even a bad model has utility if it rejects information cheaply: without conscious effort, without physical effort, and without lingering concerns or apprehensions. It's a no-FOMO mechanism. Usually, what happens is that we apply our bad models to a given scenario, act, process the new resulting scenario, and notice that that is obviously not favourable, and take appropriate actions to correct the new circumstance. Net loss: one round of interaction. Net gain: not succumbing to analysis paralysis or having to hunt for a new and improved worldview (especially: a new concensus worldview shared with numerous others, creating a large coordination problem). Sometimes that doesn't work out and people (or companies, or governments, or cultures) get stuck in a nonproductive rut, often characterised by "doing the one thing we know how to do, only harder". The big problem comes when there's a recognition that a former large-scale world model no longer applies. I'm leaning strongly to the notion that this is behind many psychological conditions: Grief, denial, meloncholia, depression, PTSD. Possibly burnout and ADHD.[1] Classic grief is triggered by the loss of a loved one, or in the "five stages of grief" study, news of the subject's own impending mortality (a fatal disease prognosis). That triggered denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. It's a pattern once recognised that one sees repeated across numerous scenarios -- almost any disaster, epidemics, global catastrophic risks, wartime attacks, business failures, relationship breakups, and on. What's curious to me is what the threshold for grief or denial is. There are some surprises which don't elicit this response: almost all humour is based on the principle of surprise, and horror films and thrill rides are based on the premise of surprise or extreme experience, but rarely result in a traumatic response. We go through our daily lives experiencing small and medium-sized suprises and disappointments all the time. The grief/denial response seems to be triggered only above a magnitude or repetition threshold. (Though that can differ markedly between individuals.) ________________________________ Notes: 1. I'm not claiming that all PTSD, burnout, and ADHD are greif responses, but rather that there are at least strong similarities. Early psychologists linked grief and melancholia (itself then considered a much stronger longing, to the point of mental illness). The mechanisms for overload might be internal -- chemical, physical, illness, injury, or genetic in origin -- or external. But there's a common thread that seems to run through these conditions, ultimately an inability to cope with a level of change.
- pixl97 7y ago
  Heh, you've hit a point I thought of years ago. That is, the brain isn't so much of a learning device, but instead on of the most powerful filtering devices ever created.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Both, probably more. It filters incoming information, but also determines relationships, matches patterns, and makes predictions.

dredmorbius 7y ago

I'm increasingly convinced that worldviews / mental models are not simply modeling devices, but information rejection tools. Borrowing from Clay Shirkey's "It's not information overload, it's filter failure", the world is a surprisingly information-rich space, and humans (or any other information-processing system, biological or otherwise) simply aren't equipped to deal with more than a minuscule fraction of it. We aim for a useful fraction. It paints an incomplete, but useful picture. Even a bad model has utility if it rejects information cheaply: without conscious effort, without physical effort, and without lingering concerns or apprehensions. It's a no-FOMO mechanism. Usually, what happens is that we apply our bad models to a given scenario, act, process the new resulting scenario, and notice that that is obviously not favourable, and take appropriate actions to correct the new circumstance. Net loss: one round of interaction. Net gain: not succumbing to analysis paralysis or having to hunt for a new and improved worldview (especially: a new concensus worldview shared with numerous others, creating a large coordination problem). Sometimes that doesn't work out and people (or companies, or governments, or cultures) get stuck in a nonproductive rut, often characterised by "doing the one thing we know how to do, only harder". The big problem comes when there's a recognition that a former large-scale world model no longer applies. I'm leaning strongly to the notion that this is behind many psychological conditions: Grief, denial, meloncholia, depression, PTSD. Possibly burnout and ADHD.[1] Classic grief is triggered by the loss of a loved one, or in the "five stages of grief" study, news of the subject's own impending mortality (a fatal disease prognosis). That triggered denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. It's a pattern once recognised that one sees repeated across numerous scenarios -- almost any disaster, epidemics, global catastrophic risks, wartime attacks, business failures, relationship breakups, and on. What's curious to me is what the threshold for grief or denial is. There are some surprises which don't elicit this response: almost all humour is based on the principle of surprise, and horror films and thrill rides are based on the premise of surprise or extreme experience, but rarely result in a traumatic response. We go through our daily lives experiencing small and medium-sized suprises and disappointments all the time. The grief/denial response seems to be triggered only above a magnitude or repetition threshold. (Though that can differ markedly between individuals.) ________________________________ Notes: 1. I'm not claiming that all PTSD, burnout, and ADHD are greif responses, but rather that there are at least strong similarities. Early psychologists linked grief and melancholia (itself then considered a much stronger longing, to the point of mental illness). The mechanisms for overload might be internal -- chemical, physical, illness, injury, or genetic in origin -- or external. But there's a common thread that seems to run through these conditions, ultimately an inability to cope with a level of change.

pixl97 7y ago
Heh, you've hit a point I thought of years ago. That is, the brain isn't so much of a learning device, but instead on of the most powerful filtering devices ever created.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Both, probably more. It filters incoming information, but also determines relationships, matches patterns, and makes predictions.