3 ms·

No it's not specifically about what you're talking about. People are literally being delusional here. There's a ton science behind this phenomenon. You can list

No it's not specifically about what you're talking about. People are literally being delusional here. There's a ton science behind this phenomenon. You can listen to that podcast it's quite interesting. Basically they can do quantitative experiments where they have groups of people rate others about how attractive they are 1-10 and through this gather an average rating about someones attractiveness. Then they have those people who were rated, rate themselves. Of course they also measure for happiness too. Turns out the less happy you are, the more accurately you rated yourself in turns of attractiveness. What I described is just one experiment out of many trying to measure this phenomenon of self deception. It is completely consistent in most experiments. Almost every single one results in a positive correlation between happiness and self-deception.

jimkleiber 3y ago
Ah, I'll check out the podcast as it seems counterintuitive to me and therefore I might learn something, thanks!
jimkleiber 3y ago
I listened to the podcast. In those experiments they described, I feel pretty confident that they're not so much measuring self-deception, but more like self-belief, or faith in oneself. First, they defined self-deception as "you have two contradictory beliefs, and you hold them at the same time, and you allow one of them into consciousness that you have a motivation for allowing one of them into consciousness." I don't know if that's so much self-deception, maybe more just trying to resolve an internal conflict and not having certainty over which one is objectively true, because for so many things I believe it's really hard to hold certainty over them being objectively true. For example, if I believe I'm good at programming and believe I'm bad at programming, which one is objectively true? I could be better at programming than my dad and worse at programming than my friend who is an Apple engineer. I think they were mostly measuring whether, in uncertainty about one's (or other's) goodness (intentions, abilities, etc.), did they believe they were good or bad? For example, in the embarrassing questions survey, if people answered yes to they thought about wanting to rape someone, I imagine they probably don't think they have good intentions. And then if someone doesn't think they have good intentions, I imagine they probably feel worse than someone who believes they do have good intentions. Eight years ago I created a class called Emotional Self-Defense. An ex had sent me an email that said, "Every time I was about to leave, you did something nice so I wouldn't go." And I immediately felt angry, "This girl thinks I manipulated her." Then a few minutes later I felt sad, "Was I manipulating her? I thought I was in love." The next day, after getting a scalp massage, I relaxed on the chair and thought, "I wasn't doing those nice things so she wouldn't go, I was doing them to savor the moment. I wasn't doing those nice things so she wouldn't leave, I was doing them because I thought she'd enjoy receiving them and I'd enjoy giving them." Then I thought, "If I can't trust my own good intentions, who the hell will?" So I tell people I choose to believe I have good intentions and that others have good intentions because I feel better when I do. Do I know for certain that they or I do? No, and I don't know if I ever will. The other experiment was about cheating and how a woman can simultaneously think a man is cheating and not cheating. In the podcast, the assumption was, to everyone else, the man was obviously cheating and yet the woman lied to herself because she believed he wasn't. But the opposite can also be true, where, to everyone else, the man is obviously not cheating and yet the woman believes that he is. This has happened to me, where the woman was convinced I was having sex with someone else when that wasn't the case at all. Lastly, the swimming example seemed to talk more about whether people believed in themselves, as much of the statements seemed like positive affirmations. "We believe we're invincible. Because if we go int here with any other thought there's no chance of us accomplishing our goal." And "It's like I have the ability to catch this person. It's going to happen." So for me, I don't think it's so much about self-deception and more about self-belief (and other-belief), as I'd argue that people who believe in themselves and others are happier and more successful. Lastly, they say "that depressed people lie less." But then go on to say, "They see all the pain in the world. How horrible people are with each other and they tell you everything about themselves. What their weaknesses are, what terrible things they've done to other people and the problem is they're right. Maybe it's the way we help people that help them be wrong." I see a lot of pain in the world but don't think that people are horrible, I think most of us react out of our own pain and want others to join us in the pain. Almost a yearning to not be alone. And therefore I choose to believe that pain and sadness are OK, as they help me feel even closer to other people and to myself. "And the problem is they're right." By what objective measure are people terrible? I appreciate you continuing with me on this and reinforcing that I listen to the podcast because for many years now I've talked about being honest with oneself and emotional honesty and such, and I think I want to focus more on loving oneself and others. In such conflicts, choosing to believe in our good intentions, our good abilities, our overall goodness instead of choosing to believe in the opposite. So thank you for helping me see this more clearly today.
- corethree 3y ago
  >So for me, I don't think it's so much about self-deception and more about self-belief (and other-belief), as I'd argue that people who believe in themselves and others are happier and more successful. An aspect of Self belief is self deception. This is when you believe in something that isn't technically true. This is the literal definition of what the words mean in English. I believe this aspect of self belief is what podcast is referring to. >By what objective measure are people terrible? There are objective measurements of universally terrible people. It is hard to measure though because it lives on a gradient and it also lives in contradictory circumstances. So people can be good and terrible at the same time. They can be good in one situation and terrible in another situation. There are even people who are neutral, or in other words people with zero allegiance to good or evil. While the gradient is hard to measure, people on the extremes are much easier to identify and measure. Psychopathy is one such condition. See here: https://www.damninteresting.com/the-unburdened-mind/ https://www.damninteresting.com/the-unburdened-mind/. While not mentioned in the article psychopathy is actually physically detectable with a brain scan and can be correlated with associated behaviors. Through the existence of people at the extremes and people obviously not at the extremes we can infer that the story is much more complex than people are "generally good". >I appreciate you continuing with me on this and reinforcing that I listen to the podcast because for many years now I've talked about being honest with oneself and emotional honesty and such, and I think I want to focus more on loving oneself and others. In such conflicts, choosing to believe in our good intentions, our good abilities, our overall goodness instead of choosing to believe in the opposite. So thank you for helping me see this more clearly today. No problem. I think the difference between our views of the world is that I view it through a data driven perspective while you view it through a more personal lens with personal experiences touching your interpretation of the world. I'll just say this. The truth, if it exists at all, lies in the data. But like my point, the truth isn't necessarily what you want here is it?

jimkleiber 3y ago

Ah, I'll check out the podcast as it seems counterintuitive to me and therefore I might learn something, thanks!

jimkleiber 3y ago

I listened to the podcast. In those experiments they described, I feel pretty confident that they're not so much measuring self-deception, but more like self-belief, or faith in oneself. First, they defined self-deception as "you have two contradictory beliefs, and you hold them at the same time, and you allow one of them into consciousness that you have a motivation for allowing one of them into consciousness." I don't know if that's so much self-deception, maybe more just trying to resolve an internal conflict and not having certainty over which one is objectively true, because for so many things I believe it's really hard to hold certainty over them being objectively true. For example, if I believe I'm good at programming and believe I'm bad at programming, which one is objectively true? I could be better at programming than my dad and worse at programming than my friend who is an Apple engineer. I think they were mostly measuring whether, in uncertainty about one's (or other's) goodness (intentions, abilities, etc.), did they believe they were good or bad? For example, in the embarrassing questions survey, if people answered yes to they thought about wanting to rape someone, I imagine they probably don't think they have good intentions. And then if someone doesn't think they have good intentions, I imagine they probably feel worse than someone who believes they do have good intentions. Eight years ago I created a class called Emotional Self-Defense. An ex had sent me an email that said, "Every time I was about to leave, you did something nice so I wouldn't go." And I immediately felt angry, "This girl thinks I manipulated her." Then a few minutes later I felt sad, "Was I manipulating her? I thought I was in love." The next day, after getting a scalp massage, I relaxed on the chair and thought, "I wasn't doing those nice things so she wouldn't go, I was doing them to savor the moment. I wasn't doing those nice things so she wouldn't leave, I was doing them because I thought she'd enjoy receiving them and I'd enjoy giving them." Then I thought, "If I can't trust my own good intentions, who the hell will?" So I tell people I choose to believe I have good intentions and that others have good intentions because I feel better when I do. Do I know for certain that they or I do? No, and I don't know if I ever will. The other experiment was about cheating and how a woman can simultaneously think a man is cheating and not cheating. In the podcast, the assumption was, to everyone else, the man was obviously cheating and yet the woman lied to herself because she believed he wasn't. But the opposite can also be true, where, to everyone else, the man is obviously not cheating and yet the woman believes that he is. This has happened to me, where the woman was convinced I was having sex with someone else when that wasn't the case at all. Lastly, the swimming example seemed to talk more about whether people believed in themselves, as much of the statements seemed like positive affirmations. "We believe we're invincible. Because if we go int here with any other thought there's no chance of us accomplishing our goal." And "It's like I have the ability to catch this person. It's going to happen." So for me, I don't think it's so much about self-deception and more about self-belief (and other-belief), as I'd argue that people who believe in themselves and others are happier and more successful. Lastly, they say "that depressed people lie less." But then go on to say, "They see all the pain in the world. How horrible people are with each other and they tell you everything about themselves. What their weaknesses are, what terrible things they've done to other people and the problem is they're right. Maybe it's the way we help people that help them be wrong." I see a lot of pain in the world but don't think that people are horrible, I think most of us react out of our own pain and want others to join us in the pain. Almost a yearning to not be alone. And therefore I choose to believe that pain and sadness are OK, as they help me feel even closer to other people and to myself. "And the problem is they're right." By what objective measure are people terrible? I appreciate you continuing with me on this and reinforcing that I listen to the podcast because for many years now I've talked about being honest with oneself and emotional honesty and such, and I think I want to focus more on loving oneself and others. In such conflicts, choosing to believe in our good intentions, our good abilities, our overall goodness instead of choosing to believe in the opposite. So thank you for helping me see this more clearly today.

corethree 3y ago
>So for me, I don't think it's so much about self-deception and more about self-belief (and other-belief), as I'd argue that people who believe in themselves and others are happier and more successful. An aspect of Self belief is self deception. This is when you believe in something that isn't technically true. This is the literal definition of what the words mean in English. I believe this aspect of self belief is what podcast is referring to. >By what objective measure are people terrible? There are objective measurements of universally terrible people. It is hard to measure though because it lives on a gradient and it also lives in contradictory circumstances. So people can be good and terrible at the same time. They can be good in one situation and terrible in another situation. There are even people who are neutral, or in other words people with zero allegiance to good or evil. While the gradient is hard to measure, people on the extremes are much easier to identify and measure. Psychopathy is one such condition. See here: https://www.damninteresting.com/the-unburdened-mind/ https://www.damninteresting.com/the-unburdened-mind/. While not mentioned in the article psychopathy is actually physically detectable with a brain scan and can be correlated with associated behaviors. Through the existence of people at the extremes and people obviously not at the extremes we can infer that the story is much more complex than people are "generally good". >I appreciate you continuing with me on this and reinforcing that I listen to the podcast because for many years now I've talked about being honest with oneself and emotional honesty and such, and I think I want to focus more on loving oneself and others. In such conflicts, choosing to believe in our good intentions, our good abilities, our overall goodness instead of choosing to believe in the opposite. So thank you for helping me see this more clearly today. No problem. I think the difference between our views of the world is that I view it through a data driven perspective while you view it through a more personal lens with personal experiences touching your interpretation of the world. I'll just say this. The truth, if it exists at all, lies in the data. But like my point, the truth isn't necessarily what you want here is it?