4 ms·

Not GP, but I think the point being made is that regardless of your ability to distinguish between the two, you still need to act according to one of the two, w

by croon 5y ago

Not GP, but I think the point being made is that regardless of your ability to distinguish between the two, you still need to act according to one of the two, with less weight given to which it ends up being. Showing up late means you avoided making a decision, to the detriment of both others as well as yourself. So pick one now, and maybe next time figure out if that was what you were feeling or not.

bumby 5y ago
Very good and succinct explanation, and I agree. I wasn't trying to justify the decision. I was just trying to add context. The poster kept using the word "reason". I.e., it isn't a rational choice to be late. I agree with that. All I was trying to do is add nuance that reason is a higher-order faculty of the mind. Many of these decisions take root at lower levels, where rationality isn't present. Because your body and subconscious struggle to differentiate between the two, it may take a lot introspection and training to arrive at the right conclusion. None of that is in disagreement with the comment I was replying to, it just adds context as to why it's easier said than done and how it may take some specific skills to implement.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > Because your body and subconscious struggle to differentiate between the two, it may take a lot introspection and training to arrive at the right conclusion. You still don't seem to understand my point. When you say things like "You can’t “just ignore it” if it provides the same subjective experience without having the skill set to acknowledge the distinction." that has nothing to do with my argument. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter which one it is. You don't need to reason about fear vs. anxiety at all. If you reach the right conclusion, you don't show up late. If you reach the wrong conclusion, you also don't show up late! I never said it was easy to distinguish between the two. The key is that making an assumption works just fine too. If you assume it's one or the other, then you won't show up late. Fear doesn't shut your brain off. If you can't tell whether a snake is venomous or not, you decide whether you're going to give it a wide berth based on a combination of emotion and/or logic. What you don't do is decide "it'll probably stop being venomous after a few minutes". > The problem is our decisions may be rooted in our lower brain faculties which can't tell the difference. It doesn’t justify reacting to anxiety (which seems to be what you're hung up on), but helps explain why it happens and why it’s so hard to change. That's not what I'm hung up on at all. What I'm hung up on is the idea that it would make you late. If the anxiety feels like real danger, and you're treating it as real danger, then don't show up at all. It's not a "dinner party" if you're scared for your safety.
  - bumby 5y ago
    I understand what you're saying but get the feeling you're painting in a light that just doesn't align with the way people make decisions. Have you ever known someone who procrastinates on an important task even though they know it's important? They rationally know it's in their best interest and needs to get done. They know it's not fear, because there's no real threat of bodily harm. Yet they can't get the initiative to begin the task. Maybe they eventually get around to doing it because they can rationalize themselves into action, but why was there a delay at all? I'm saying it's because the parts of our brain that help initiate decisions are affected by fight-or-flight stress. In the case above, the stress may be caused by the anxiety of an overwhelming task. Delayed action is a form of coping. It's not "fear", but there is still a delayed decision because anxiety initiates a similar response. Is it rational? Not at all. It still governed by the same mechanisms, but can be overridden even when it takes some time. Just like in a real fear scenario when people can't think straight enough to act. If you can understand that "being late" is, at times, a coping mechanism for that stress, then you can understand the relevance of my point.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      If they know it's just anxiety then that's a completely different situation from what we were talking about, isn't it? Being bad at handling anxiety is a very different thing from not knowing if it's just anxiety. If you know it's anxiety then you know it's a bad reason to show up late. It's forgivable but that doesn't change it.
      - bumby 5y ago
        >If you know it's anxiety then you know it's a bad reason To underscore the point ad nauseum, "they" do not know, other than "they" feel the pangs of anxiety that lead to to the inability to act. There is a disconnect between their rationality and their mechanisms to make a decision. It's possible "their" rational faculties understand while "their" lower systems do not. There's no mental gymnastics necessary to see how the two can coexist. As I said, it takes a whole lot of introspection for some people to override that. The mind is not a single all-seeing rational "decider", unfortunately, and that's why things like cognitive dissonance are difficult to overcome. All I can conclude from this discourse is we have very different ideas about the way the mind works. Yours does not seem consistent with the cognitive psychology of the last 30 or so years, particularly since fMRI studies became popular.

by croon 5y ago

bumby 5y ago

Very good and succinct explanation, and I agree. I wasn't trying to justify the decision. I was just trying to add context. The poster kept using the word "reason". I.e., it isn't a rational choice to be late. I agree with that. All I was trying to do is add nuance that reason is a higher-order faculty of the mind. Many of these decisions take root at lower levels, where rationality isn't present. Because your body and subconscious struggle to differentiate between the two, it may take a lot introspection and training to arrive at the right conclusion. None of that is in disagreement with the comment I was replying to, it just adds context as to why it's easier said than done and how it may take some specific skills to implement.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> Because your body and subconscious struggle to differentiate between the two, it may take a lot introspection and training to arrive at the right conclusion. You still don't seem to understand my point. When you say things like "You can’t “just ignore it” if it provides the same subjective experience without having the skill set to acknowledge the distinction." that has nothing to do with my argument. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter which one it is. You don't need to reason about fear vs. anxiety at all. If you reach the right conclusion, you don't show up late. If you reach the wrong conclusion, you also don't show up late! I never said it was easy to distinguish between the two. The key is that making an assumption works just fine too. If you assume it's one or the other, then you won't show up late. Fear doesn't shut your brain off. If you can't tell whether a snake is venomous or not, you decide whether you're going to give it a wide berth based on a combination of emotion and/or logic. What you don't do is decide "it'll probably stop being venomous after a few minutes". > The problem is our decisions may be rooted in our lower brain faculties which can't tell the difference. It doesn’t justify reacting to anxiety (which seems to be what you're hung up on), but helps explain why it happens and why it’s so hard to change. That's not what I'm hung up on at all. What I'm hung up on is the idea that it would make you late. If the anxiety feels like real danger, and you're treating it as real danger, then don't show up at all. It's not a "dinner party" if you're scared for your safety.
- bumby 5y ago
  I understand what you're saying but get the feeling you're painting in a light that just doesn't align with the way people make decisions. Have you ever known someone who procrastinates on an important task even though they know it's important? They rationally know it's in their best interest and needs to get done. They know it's not fear, because there's no real threat of bodily harm. Yet they can't get the initiative to begin the task. Maybe they eventually get around to doing it because they can rationalize themselves into action, but why was there a delay at all? I'm saying it's because the parts of our brain that help initiate decisions are affected by fight-or-flight stress. In the case above, the stress may be caused by the anxiety of an overwhelming task. Delayed action is a form of coping. It's not "fear", but there is still a delayed decision because anxiety initiates a similar response. Is it rational? Not at all. It still governed by the same mechanisms, but can be overridden even when it takes some time. Just like in a real fear scenario when people can't think straight enough to act. If you can understand that "being late" is, at times, a coping mechanism for that stress, then you can understand the relevance of my point.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    If they know it's just anxiety then that's a completely different situation from what we were talking about, isn't it? Being bad at handling anxiety is a very different thing from not knowing if it's just anxiety. If you know it's anxiety then you know it's a bad reason to show up late. It's forgivable but that doesn't change it.
    - bumby 5y ago
      >If you know it's anxiety then you know it's a bad reason To underscore the point ad nauseum, "they" do not know, other than "they" feel the pangs of anxiety that lead to to the inability to act. There is a disconnect between their rationality and their mechanisms to make a decision. It's possible "their" rational faculties understand while "their" lower systems do not. There's no mental gymnastics necessary to see how the two can coexist. As I said, it takes a whole lot of introspection for some people to override that. The mind is not a single all-seeing rational "decider", unfortunately, and that's why things like cognitive dissonance are difficult to overcome. All I can conclude from this discourse is we have very different ideas about the way the mind works. Yours does not seem consistent with the cognitive psychology of the last 30 or so years, particularly since fMRI studies became popular.