This is the capstone post for my sequence Beneath Psychology. In this post, in addition to compressing down to the actionable takeaways, I will be attempting to close all the loops, connect all the dots, and cross the final inferential step that needed all those words to justify and elucidate.^[1]

As a result, this post is dense, and will likely take some time to digest. If you haven't been following along, it's unlikely that what I'm saying will make sense. Feel free to comment even if you haven't, and it doesn't, and I'll do my best to clear up any confusions as they come up.

Concrete guide for navigating disagreements

Now that we've looked at all the individual pieces, we can start putting them together into a concise and memorable framework to serve as a concrete guide to action. These are not "rules that must be followed", or "techniques to try". These are coordinate axes. If you want more respect so that people will listen when you talk, here's what points in that direction. If a certain direction doesn't feel appropriate, here's what that reveals about your object level beliefs. That kind of thing.

In other words, these are your options -- and descriptions of what you will want to do, made easier to notice.

There are three layers: Attention, Respect, Security. We negotiate all three layers simultaneously, constantly updating our beliefs about where on each spectrum we want to play, and bidding/offering/accepting bids accordingly.

Attention

Bidding strongly on attention requires pointing in one direction to the exclusion of others. If you fear that you might be wrong, you will communicate this caveat by splitting your attention between multiple options, and as a result you will split their attention as well. To see if you're ready do bid strongly for attention turn to the following question: "What if I'm wrong?". If you bid honestly and are wrong you will be surprised. Are you ready to risk this surprise? Would it even be surprising? Because if not then you know you weren't bidding honestly.^[2] 

Bidding strongly might provoke a break of rapport if they're not ready to consider bids this strong from you. If you want to keep rapport because you're not prepared to bid more strongly on the other levels, and you still think you know the answer, you can see if they'll agree. By offering them attention and asking if you've given enough, you give them a chance to notice that you have, and offer their attention in return. This other key question is "Am I missing anything?".^[3]

Sometimes they'll bid in ways that don't seem right to you, and instead of escalating you can ask for reconsideration. This means flipping to the other side of the coin on both of these key questions: "Are you sure you're not missing anything? What if you're wrong?". The first is the meta level check "Do you trust your own judgement here", and the second is reconsidering the judgment itself. What if you're wrong? Is that something you're willing to risk? The former has the function of opening the latter up for reconsideration. If I've bid then I've already taken the stance that I'm willing to be wrong, and will be likely to simply assert "I'm not wrong". I might not have though this through, and if you ask me how I'm so sure... I might realize that I want to reconsider -- if you direct me to the object level question again. Then again, if it's already obvious that I might be missing something, then you can skip this step and return straight to the object level question of what if I'm wrong.^[4]

When you notice yourself not confident in bidding further -- because you recognize that you might be wrong -- you might find yourself getting curious. When you're curious, that's your cue to follow that curiosity, and listen. You will likely want to offer your attention, attune to the experience they're aiming to convey, and find out what they have to show.

Respect

Bidding strongly on respect requires that you believe your bids for attention will turn out justified or that theirs will not. This means that you can put yourself in the position to stick your neck out and risk humiliation, and feel confident taking the bet because you've already humbled yourself appropriately -- in expectation. Sure, your bet might be wrong on the margin. Are you ready for that? The key question that enables strong bidding for respect is "Am I ready to be humbled?". Are you able to face laughter with a smile on your face, because you understand where it's coming from, and that it doesn't impact the credibility of what you're saying? When you make a bid for respect and turn out to be wrong, you will be put back in your place. Will this feel humbling or humiliating? If the former, that's fine, you accepted the known risks and made your best bet in honest expectation. If the latter, you made a claim without accepting the risks, showing that your words weren't honest and your bet not optimal in your own object level judgement.^[5]

Of course, bidding strongly on respect risks breaking rapport and escalating to divergence on the layer of security. Maybe you're not ready to deal with that. If you think you deserve more relative respect, and don't want to break rapport, again you can offer them the choice with room to think and evidence that you're right. If you offer them the respect they think they deserve, and don't demand more than they're willing to give you, they might realize their error on their own -- if they are indeed in error. The key question that enables this reflection is: "Am I taking your perspective seriously enough?".^[6]

Sometimes they'll bid in ways that don't seem right to you, and instead of escalating you can ask for reconsideration by flipping the questions again: "Are you sure you're taking my perspective seriously enough? Are you ready to be humbled?". Of course, the connotations don't come across right on that latter question as stated, so realistically it's something more like "Are you aware of how you're coming across right now?".

If you don't think you have the most solid footing, you can offer respect instead. Look up to people who have earned it. Listen when they talk -- at least when they bid for attention. If you respect them, you will be willing to entertain uncomfortable things which conflict with your worldview because you think it's important enough to be uncomfortable for.

Security

Bidding strongly on security requires you to face risk of harm. You might hurt someone, by allowing them to mislead themselves into harm -- and you will lose trust if people can see you flinch away from accounting for this. You might start a fight, and they might hurt you. In order to bid strongly on security, you have to put yourself in their shoes and expect safety. You have to lower your shield, and your spear, and make yourself vulnerable. If you can't ground this in strength and clarity, the risk is real, and bluffing will come back to bite you sooner or later. The fundamental question relating to bidding on security is "Am I ready to make myself vulnerable and face the potential for harm without bracing?" -- in other words "Can I actually fully engage while completely enjoying every aspect of it without subtly flinching from something in a way they could conceivably call me on and make me uncomfortable?". If you bid honestly and are wrong, someone will get hurt. You will owe someone an apology. Are you ready to grieve that loss and offer that apology? Will you actually be sorry? Because if not then you know you weren't bidding honestly.^[7]

Of course, doing things that frighten people might cause actual harm. If you still think more security is likely appropriate and don't want to risk someone getting hurt if you're wrong, once again you can offer them the decision and evidence that things might be safer than they realize. The relevant question here is "Am I being too threatening here?" -- or, more naturally phrased: "Are you okay?".^[8]

When people bid that things aren't okay and you don't want to just bid stronger, you can again flip the questions on them. Are you being too threatening here? Am I okay, in your eyes? Or, perhaps more naturally "Will you forgive me?".^[9]

Maybe you know they aren't, and still want to help. If this is the case, you have the option to walk on egg shells and make really sure that nothing you do is threatening. You don't make fun of people, you don't expect them to listen to you. You don't expect respect, you don't even expect non-hostility. You listen to them. Including when they say they don't wanna get into it. Including when they show that they don't respect you, and when they lash out at you in ways you don't deserve. These things are signals, and their meaning is important, when you can't justify counter-bidding.

This is the weakest influence you can have, and at times it will also be the strongest you can justify. You might not want to engage, if this is all you can do. If you do, this is what you can always do. And often, this is enough.^[10]

In short,

Theoretically clean:

 Or in more natural language:

Navigating by these principles doesn't fit well into a simple flow chart. The actions we take evidence all three layers simultaneously, and therefore skillful navigation will take into account and act on all three layers simultaneously. We also split our attention, and go in multiple directions at once. This can't be easily represented as a set of discrete choices doing one thing at a time.

Nevertheless, when I notice a disagreement that I don't anticipate I will skillfully navigate without explicit thought^[11], the mental moves I explicitly go through to help get myself on track roughly follow the following flow chart.^[12]

In other words, this is my attempt to make explicit the steps required to orient to the things that are important for finding truth in a world where other people's behaviors and models are themselves evidence about what's true. It's an unpacking of the "Orientation" step of the "OODA loop". Each time through the loop our focus can shift to the new most important disagreement, which may or may not be the same disagreement.

For example, we might shift from "The place we should go for dinner is X" to "The most important consideration is whether they can accommodate Bob's peanut allergy" to "Does Bob actually have a peanut allergy!?" -- to "This can all wait; the building is on fire". This ability to shift object of attention each iteration is a feature, as it allows us to track the most currently relevant facet of divergence according to our entire ability to discern, and to respond appropriately.

In a different situation, the initial disagreement might be "This person thinks X, and I think that's wrong", but after orienting to this disagreement we might notice that we're flinching away from making a strong bid for attention because we're afraid of being wrong -- and we might think this is unnecessary and inappropriate relative to the strength of our evidence. If so, we can reorient to this new internal disagreement and face the question "What if I'm wrong?" before returning to "This person thinks X" once we resolve that.

There's no requirement to say anything at each run through the loop, and when we can afford the time we can often get better results by anticipating results and iterating internally for a few passes before deciding on what to actually say. For example when the drunk guy said he was going to drive home I thought "That's definitely not right", but I didn't actually say anything until I had looped around enough to resolve the internal disagreements and notice that I was definitely curious and didn't understand his experience well enough to comment. In other cases though, sometimes I will just say things to probe and see what happens. I can make guesses about whether they'd get insecure, or laugh, or listen... or I can just say it and find out. Sometimes that's worth it too.

Aumann agreement actually works -- if you behave rationally

We normally think of Aumann agreement as not actually working in real life, which is because the prerequisites often don't exist in real life. We don't always have two people that are updating on the evidence of each other's beliefs. Therefore we also don't always have common knowledge that both people are updating rather than flinching into insecurity.

We can though. And do. We can even practice Aumann agreement even with babies and toddlers.

The important part of pulling off Aumann agreement is that you stay honest and engaged with feedback. The moment I try to bullshit a bid, you can smell it. So you won't update, because it's not evidence of what I'm claiming. Neither will I anymore, because now your lack of updating doesn't mean anything either.

But what if we stay engaged?

When my baby girl cries, sometimes there's a real problem, but sometimes I get the sense that she's actually fine. The former bothers me, because I want her to be okay. The latter does not, because by definition there isn't a real problem in those cases. When I suspect the latter, I can be both empathetic and in a playful mood. So I'll smile, and I'll tickle her, and I'll expect her to smile back.

What happens next?

If I was right, she might soften, or break. It's really fun watching kids try to cry, and be unable to help themselves from smiling and calming down. That happens sometimes.

Other times, it won't help. At least not immediately. Sometimes she'll cry harder. What happens then?

Well, am I still empathetic and playful? Or did she successfully poop my party?

Depending on the situation, I might double down, she might double down, or both, or neither. Sometimes I think she's bluffing extra hard and I'll keep tickling, and she'll turn around. "I think not okay!" "I think okay :)" "I think not okay!" "I think okay :)" "Okay, I agree". Just another iteration of the Aumann agreement game.

In the cases where my initial suspicions turn out false, I start out "Aw, you're okay!", then soften to "Are you okay?" and turn around to "What's wrong, baby girl?". "I think not okay!" "I think okay :)" "I think not okay!" "Okay, I agree".

Aumann agreement works just fine. To pull it off, maintain the prerequisites. Keep close attachment to reality. At each moment, watch your confidences and beliefs and moods shift underneath you. Find out whose footing was more stable by whose stance changes in response to evidence of disagreement first.

Truth continues to exist, even when difficult to pin down

This sequence opened with an example of an insecure girl not wanting her makeup to wash off, and her friends disagreeing that this was important. It often feels like these things are about "differences in values, not disagreement about facts". But the fact is that no one would judge her, and once she recognized this to be true she was able to enjoy swimming and see first hand that her worry had simply been incorrect.

I then used the example of the guy in overwhelming pain due to nerve damage. This one also doesn't seem like "It's about disagreement over factual matters" but rather "It's about physical sensations!". Yet he ended up experiencing quite significant improvement quite quickly, without change in physical sensations.^[13] Because he had recognized different things to be true.

My friend with her fear of heights, same thing. Once again, what looked like "emotions, not facts" turned out to be a disagreement over facts made persistent by insecurity driven flinches from reality.

These aren't cherry picked "coincidences" that happened to be about facts, only by chance looking like other situations that "really are" about things other than fact. The road marked by continued engagement with reality invariably leads to agreement over bets. The paths I took in resolving these things weren't predetermined because I did not know how they would respond to anything, but the navigational strategy of looking at new evidence as it arises and redirecting to what matters was predetermined. With my friend's fear of heights, I didn't know whether she'd leave saying "I guess that is dangerous" or "I guess I'm not scared no more", but I knew it'd be one or the other -- or, if not, that it would be because we failed to reach the end of that road.

This is because at any step, we're either in disagreement over what's true, or we're not in disagreement.

For example, you might say "But what if people a little bit judged the girl when her makeup washed off, and you just don't think it matters but she did!?". Well, then in that case, the disagreement would be over whether that little bit of judgement matters. I might hypothetically believe that it just makes the judger an idiot, and she might think it's the end of the world. These are factual things though. If we can summon the security to face reality, we can find out whether the world ends. And whether the judger is an idiot.

If the world ends we can't really continue, so let's assume it turns out that the judger is actually an idiot. Or, more precisely, someone weaponizing and externalizing their own insecurity to protect themselves from uncomfortable truths, and in the process pushing ideas that are obviously wrong even to them. Even once we realize that this is going on, she might not want to go swimming! She might object "I don't like seeing people as idiots!", which sounds like a "value" thing again.

But why would she not like it, if not that it's "bad" in some way? Maybe she's right! If I still think the right play would be to write them off as "idiots", then we still have a disagreement to face: when people do things that are predictably-to-them stupid in a way that attempts to force other people to pay the consequences for their own insecurities, is it better to dismiss them as 'idiots', or to not? These are all questions that could conceivably be answered, if it were to get that far.

Things don't bottom out at "Values difference!", because even if it's hard to see how "values" cache out in "truths", we still have to decide which values to prioritize, and there are better and worse ways to prioritize things.

If we run into a "Values difference!" of "Truth vs compassion" for example, then there's still a "Way that things will play out if you prioritize truth" and a different "Way that things will play out if you prioritize compassion". Sure, in the short term, watching someone's feelings get hurt by a tactless pushing of 'truth' won't change any minds, but that's just because the disagreement over implicit facts lies further in the future. If the community decays because of insufficient contact with truth, and people lose everyone they love, even the "compassion" favoring people will have something they can't ignore. If the community becomes nothing but fighting because shutting out truths relating to the value of compassion made things immediately fall apart, to never improve, then the "truth" favoring people won't be able to hold onto their perspective without shutting out truth themselves.

Whenever we feel like "We're both looking at the same reality, and disagreeing over values", what that shows us isn't that truth "doesn't exist", or "is relative", but that we aren't yet aware of what implicit differences we're in disagreement over. One side might see white lies as deeply wrong, and not know why. The other side might see using 'truth' as an excuse to be mean as obviously wrong, a priori, because compassion is just what matters. But we can always dig one step deeper, and ask: Why is compassion what matters? Why is it wrong to white lie? What's the harm, in either case?

And when we look, we can start to notice. The harm in white lies is that it breaks contact with reality, increases the risk of crashing into rocks, and of not even noticing that you're sinking and that this could be avoided. The harm in pushing truth without compassion is that the subtle insecurities that lead you to do it without compassion also give hints that your implicit attitudes aren't knowably true either -- and those will sink you in very specific ways too. Careful allegiance to truth gets you compassion as well, when it's true that compassion is good. Like when someone is in such a rough place that they judge risking a car wreck as better than staying at a party, and the implicit worldviews motivating "That's dumb!" turn out to be false. Or when a girl at a music festival is being a turd because of whatever reason, but whatever reason that actually exists and is sufficient to make responding to her with anger or contempt wrong.^[14]

The road is always there. The only question is whether you make the decision to stop engaging before you get there.

The Default Failure is Arrogance

If we meta-disagree in the direction of thinking each other's object level perspective is worth more than our own, then things resolve themselves. We're both willing to listen, including to the part where the other side thinks we have something of value. Therefore, persistent disagreements are always errors on the other side; at least one party is arrogantly shutting out evidence contradicting their perspectives.

We then get to thinking "It's definitely me that's right. But they're so wrong and irrational that I can't just say that, so I have to do things to fix that" and end up puzzled how to solve these problems with the other person's thinking.

When I notice myself a bit confused, thinking that I know what the right answer [probably] is yet not immediately knowing what to say/do to resolve the disagreement, the place I like to start is to notice: if I'm definitely so right and justified and rational, I can just say what's true and that is enough. When I know I'm right, my confidence will shine through. I won't shy away from bidding from attention, even if people might laugh. I won't have my feelings hurt when they laugh, nor will I fear conflict. After all, what I'm saying is true.

When I notice that I can't stand so strong without doubts, and cannot actually anticipate that people will come to agree, that means I'm not as justified as I've been telling myself and I know it. So might as well start acting like it.^[15]

This is why there's no "debugging section" to this sequence. The entire sequence is the "debugging section" to the idea that if we're so rational and justified and right, we can just say what's true and expect people to believe us, because they can see that we couldn't face reality like this and maintain our belief if it weren't likely to be true. We can do Aumann agreement with a baby if we maintain contact with reality. Simply pointing at reality unflinchingly is enough -- when we can pull it off.^[16]

That's why I can basically say "Turns out you can just decide not to swell injuries". Or simply "Let me know when you're ready. Okay, now go into hypnosis" to a person who starts off thinking they "can't be hypnotized" because someone actually tried and failed to hypnotize them. That's not always the quickest path to understanding, which is why I broke it down into pieces the first time I wanted to help my wife change the amount of blood flow here hands were getting -- and didn't just say "[If your hands are cold but your core is warm,] Then send more blood to your hands, right?" until after she had that experience.

The fact that we don't have to give that more detailed explanation, and can simply hold the line, is usually not important as "the right play" but it can be very useful as a starting place to debug what we'd like to happen.

From there, we can notice if that would work, and if it wouldn't where it would go wrong. What will their response be? Where do we feel pressure to fold first? What if we fold preemptively because we notice we would be overextending not to? Humbling ourselves before getting humiliated. Chilling on the provocation before getting attacked. Etc.

It gives us a concrete way to 1) get maximally simple and quick results, or else 2) find out exactly where we don't yet deserve them.

Do I notice that I'm afraid they might actually believe me?

Do I notice that they might not take me seriously, and I'm afraid they might turn out to be right not to?

Do I notice that I anticipate conflict, and that I'm not comfortable enough to stay open and vulnerable, knowing that my position is safe and solid?

The pool intervention, explained

Let us now return to the girl not wanting her makeup to wash off in the pool. How did I generate those moves, and know that they would lead to a good outcome?

The perspective she was expressing seemed kinda... dumb. Like, no, that's not real. I don't think, at least. I have a hard time taking it seriously. That's what seemed real to me, at the start.

Did I know for sure? If I were to have a magic programming interface to put new beliefs in her brain unilaterally, would I do it? No. I wasn't that sure. There are lots of ways that even explicit delusions can be load bearing^[17]. There's way too many ways for that to be a bad bet that I prefer to be guided by the beauty of my weapons; I want her to agree with me that my perspective is the right one, and for good solid reflectively stable reason, if she's going to take it on as her own.

Would she do that, if I simply asserted it? Clearly no. Everyone can tell that this is a "No". Her friends had tried, even. Poorly, but they tried. I don't anticipate her simply accepting it if I asserted with an expectation of her accepting my words as truth. I anticipate her pulling away out of insecurity. Which seems fair to me, actually. Because "Who the heck is this guy, and why does he think I should believe what he wants me to believe?". I agree.

I don't want to talk if that's the effect it will have. If I want to engage, and I don't want to talk, my option is to listen. I can attend to what she is pointing our attention at, which is the perception that if her makeup washes off it would be bad. Presumably because the makeup would no longer be there to do makeup things. So "You really don't want people to see you without your makeup on, huh?".

That's pretty validating though. Do I actually see those feelings as that valid? Am I really curious to know more about what her feelings are on the matter, or do I already know? I kinda feel like I already know where this is going. I'm not honestly that curious, and I don't really take her protestations very seriously. So what if I signal that? What if I reflect back her statement -- granting her attention -- but signal that I don't exactly take it completely seriously? How can I do that?

Well, I can say what I have to say in order to keep rapport, and let the humor I find in it shine through. Is it genuinely funny to me? Yep. When I check my anticipation of how this bid for respect goes, do I anticipate her holding her ground and saying "Thank you! Some people don't recognize how important this is!"? I don't. That would genuinely surprise me. It could happen, and if it did I would have humble pie that I would need to eat if I were going to stay engaged with truth. Was I ready to eat it if it came to that? Was I willing to take that risk? Not if I was outright laughing at her while saying it, no. But if I'm merely exaggerating the parts I don't expect her to agree with, and leaving subtle hints that I don't really buy it? Yeah, I can eat that much humble pie. I'll take that bet.

But might it upset her? Might bidding that boldly push her into considering ideas that felt more threatening than she was confident she could process into better results? It might. Am I willing to risk that? Well, again, depends on how I go about it. I didn't want to leave her upset. I didn't want to come off like a jerk to people who's perspectives I respect (e.g. mine, my wife's, the girl's, in the likely case that she were to turn out to be reasonable). But is that really likely? Nah, I'm actually not judging her. So long as I'm careful to only reflect her own judgments back at her I can easily side step any offense; I know how to be that careful. She just can't stay upset because I can say with an arbitrarily straight face that I'm not calling her ugly, just giving her the respect she deserves (again, because it's true, and I mean it). She might get upset, and that's fine -- because her upset would be wrong and I can prove it to her own satisfaction. Her upset would only be temporary, and lead to a better place. Could I get this wrong? Absolutely. But if I did, it would genuinely surprise me, and I would be genuinely sorry. So I could actually mean it if I were to owe her an apology, and I don't anticipate any reasonable chance of her not accepting the apology as sincere and sufficient.

So I knew my bets.

I'm not gonna tell her she's wrong. I'm going to give her the attention respect and security she asks for. At the same time, I'm going to play my bids that I don't entirely think this is the right answer, or justified, and that I do expect she'll find that I'm on her side. Because I didn't think her answers were right, or very well justified, and I did think she's realize that I'm on her side. Because I was, and wasn't going to flinch from engagement.

So I played those bets, and was proven correct. Which earned me the security and respect needed for her to take my sincere perspective as meaningful enough to both ask for it and contemplate it.

Once she asked, it was clear that she actually wanted to consider my stance, so it felt worth giving. So I gave it. And she considered it. And all things considered, it seemed like I was probably right -- so she knew her new bet too, and going swimming seems to have paid off.

I opened this sequence by posing this challenge and stating that it could be solved by simply showing the truth and justifying it.

Now that you've seen the framework, and now that you've seen the exact process of checking which bets were justified, do you see it?

Do you see how those lines are specified almost uniquely given my epistemic state at the time?^[18]

Building security on purpose/Justifying security

A lot of options open up when you're secure. You can make fun of strangers in ways that they'll enjoy and feel safe with, only for them to ask for your input on things that you would never have though they'd listen to.

Problems tend to dissolve when there's no barrier to looking at reality. But security is hard earned.

In the "Clarity" post, I implicitly conflated "security" with "safety" a little bit. Yes, it's easier to act with security when a toddler is throwing a tantrum than it is when a man with a knife is throwing a tantrum, and that's because it's objectively safer. At the same time, security, on a fundamental level, is an ability to compute acceptable responses to the new information we're presented with. If you anticipate that facing reality will drive you to harmful conclusions, then you will not feel secure. If you anticipate that facing reality is the best you can do, you'll face the damn reality. Even if it remains objectively unsafe.

If that violent man with a knife is definitely going to find you, and he will definitely try to kill you, and you definitely can't run... then when this is crystal clear to you, it is no longer tempting to cower or squeal in fear. You stand up and fight with what you can, even though it's unsafe, because it's the clearly the least bad thing you can do. A good definition of courage, is the embodied recognition that the best course of action remains scary as fuck.

So how we build security on purpose? Well, first by staying safe, if we can. If we can't be threatened, then it's obviously going to be okay to face reality.

But when we can't ensure safety and good outcomes? We can think through what to do with the information we might be confronted with, which we're choosing to avoid. "What if I get hurt!?!?". What if they think I'm dumb?

What if?

Like, non-rhetorically. What if?

Can we avoid it?

If not, what would we want to do about it, should that turn out to be the case?

Well, maybe we want to fight back with the best weapon we have, even though it's a chair. Maybe they'll think we're dumb and that's unfortunate, but at least we know they're wrong. Or maybe they wouldn't be wrong, so, uh... I guess figure out what to do about the possibility that we're dumb?

Once we have answers there, it's not "not-scary", exactly, because you could still die. Or get made fun of, which might feel worse. But it won't be paralyzing, because the right answer will be clear.

Security is built by justifying security. By attending to the question "What would be the appropriate way to respond to the threatening information?", and settling on an acceptable answer. In other words, "Leaving lines of retreat".

Oh no, people might not laugh if I make that joke. People might laugh, if I say that for serious. What if they do? Does it mean I'm wrong? Do I want to humble myself or play 'double or nothing'? Not always, but often these can be answerable in the moment, with just a flicker of awareness that there's a question to be answered. In the jacuzzi most of those questions had intuitively obvious answers, but I had enough insecurity that I would have ordinarily kept my mouth shut. What if she gets offended!? What if I misjudged, and this is a more serious issue than I've assumed?

I'm not judging her, obviously. That's why I'm not accusing her of silliness, and instead gently hinting. I can eat this much humble pie, and I'm prepared to give an apology sincere enough that she will accept is. This much was obvious in a flicker, and I did run these checks explicitly before opening my mouth to tease her. This sequence is both a descriptive explanation of what you already do, and a set of scaffolding that you can use to make sure the things you find most compelling in the first person cohere with the things that you think should compel you -- from the third person perspective. When you find yourself displeased with how things are going, you can think back to the key questions, and notice any discrepancies. If you think you're right and worth listening to, but you're not bidding for attention and respect because it feels bad, then is it because you're bullshitting yourself or because you're insecure unnecessarily? When you face and answer the "What if!?" questions, what happens to your willingness to stick your neck out and bet? What happens to your third person stance on how right and justified you are?

It can also act as scaffolding to make sure other people agree in the first person as well. Often, the biggest obstacle isn't knowing that we're right, it's the other person knowing how to recognize "losing" the argument to be winning in life. Stepping into their shoes and retaining security does serve to bid for their security in a content-less Aumann Agreement sort of way, but retaining security requires you to know how they come out ahead by listening.

If the irrational butt head doesn't want to listen even though you're definitely right because it threatens his ego, then how is taking that blow a winning move, for him? How would you deal with that information, and know you're coming out ahead for it? Because if listening to you will cause him to lose, he's making the right decision by blowing you off! And if you know the answer, you can also articulate it. Or highlight it. You're allowed to embody that knowledge and let it flow downhill in all ways, not just through body language.

Think things through enough that you know what you'd do with that information -- or just wing it, and have faith in your ability to figure something out -- and you'll have security. And you'll be able to invite them to join you it by bidding credibly.

When you're not happy with the results you're getting because you're flinching left and right, this is your homework to do. What would happen, if you were to not flinch? And what might you want to do about it, if the thing you're flinching from were to become real?

Rationality is simple; preserving it is not

When learning to shoot, the way to hit the target -- rather than flinching -- is remarkably simple: you try to hit the target. That's literally all it is. My "novel" solution which fixes flinches orders of magnitude faster than regularly practiced methods is simply "Make sure to not do the wrong thing, try to do the right thing".

The fix itself takes a few seconds. The explanation of how to fix it takes a few minutes.

Why does it take minutes and hundreds of words to convey "Make sure to not do the wrong thing, try to do the right thing"?

Why is that a thing that even needs to be said at all?

Let's look closely, starting at the base layer:

To hit the target you have to aim at the target

To aim at the target you have to decide to aim at the target

To decide to aim at the target, you have to not expect that you can't decide these things.

This last one highlights the difficulty.

Once you've formed the belief that you can't decide these things, that belief gets in the way of doing the things you'd be doing "automatically". It is this belief that breaks your contact with reality, and prevents you regulating towards what you want in optimal fashion.

Where do these beliefs come from?

Well, look at what they do. These beliefs serve to stop you from trying. You can't decide these things, so don't try. If you try you will fail. You will experience prediction error! Suffering! Dukkha! We don't want that!

These beliefs serve to protect you from facing the pain of reality invalidating your fantasies. But don't we want that? Isn't that how we summon the motivation to act? Isn't that how we know to push against whichever are the weakest obstacles in our way so that we can reshape the world to get what we want? Haven't I been hammering on the fact that our feelings say things about reality, and we want actual reality to be a certain way? That we don't give a shit about "feelings" for the sake of feelings?

Well... yes.

So again, what's going on?

Again, pain illuminates. Bump your toe, and it's easy; it hurts, you realize "Oops, there's a rock there, I'll be more careful". Then you move on with your life. Have your nerves fried in a medical situation gone wrong, and it's not so easy. Instead of "Oops, here's the obvious next move", it's "HOLY HELL WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON!?!?". Everything feels urgent. Which things are? We don't have space to figure out. We cannot contain the entirety of the situation at once. We can only productively give so many fucks at a time, and getting blasted in the face with a firehose of information does not lead to quicker faster decisions.

So we look to back away. Rationally, but often without self awareness.

In doing so, we enter an unstable situation.

The concept of "I can't force myself to do what I think would be the right thing to do" lives very near to "I can't decide". They are distinct, and only one of them is true, but unless you have crystal clear vision it is easy to genuinely mistake one for the other. Which one is going to be the more attractive answer -- which one is going to feel like it gives you more of what you want, in the moment -- if there's ever any little bit of pressure to face reality when you feel like maybe you can't handle it? What happens next, when the response to "You have to face reality" is met with "I can't. And I am, already"? It's not a decrease in the pressure to confabulate reasons for failure.

Once you have motive to say "I can't. It's not so simple", you're at very high risk of believing it.

And once you believe it, how can you get out of the trap?

Well, you can be taken by the hand, and led out, one issue at a time. When you're hurt, and try to fight off tears not knowing what to do with the information you're blasted with, sometimes all it takes is for someone to squat down to your level, join you in your suffering, and show by example that it's possible to face it. This can take very few words, or no words. Experience this enough, and you might expect to handle more things by default. And start sitting with others in return. Or, at least, contributing less to mutually prickly interactions and averting some melt downs. Which also contributes to those around you learning that it's safe to lower their spears and shields a bit, on the margin.

At least, until you're faced with challenging enough situations that the neutrons begin multiplying again. Without an awareness of these dynamics, and a recognition of the way out, group dynamics will blow with the wind, with no one at the wheel with the recognition of how to stop the descent when thing go poorly.

The point of the words is to paint a picture of the problem. See "I can't" for what it is, and it's no longer so compelling. Because you see the gaps, and through them, the way out -- back to the difficult question.

For a localized flinch such as when shooting a handgun, this may only take a couple hundred words.

For chronic pain, it may take a few thousand.

For the fully general case, needed to recognize and navigate every facet that "Pressure to face more reality than known-productive generates flinches which get confused for beliefs and reality" expands into... such that swelling injuries feels like a choice... such that you can see the flinches in chronic pain and help lead people out of their suffering... such that when your community flinches from reality in ways that it is both genuinely and motivatedly blind to, you can see the structure that reinforces it and how to nudge things in a productive direction...

I don't think 70k is enough.

Even if you've read every word of this sequence, I doubt that swelling injuries feels like a choice. Or that pain feels like "just information we care about". Or that you'll see willful arrogance every time it's there, especially in yourself, when "It's an honest disagreement and/or misunderstanding" is still a socially acceptable line. Experiences need time to add up, and alternate frameworks filled in. Reality is still a fire hose. We all have to pull away, at times, and regulate out exposure. And once it comes time to reengage, on the margins, it's not always easy to find where to start.

But maybe now the cracks are visible. Or, the possibility that there exist cracks, is visible.

If I have been successful, then you will start to notice. The insecurities you harbor will feel more obvious, more understandable and unavoidable rather than simple moral failures -- and simultaneously more optional -- perhaps wise, perhaps not, and up to you to tell.

And so when it comes time to reengage, on the margin, you'll know where to look, and how to tug at the seams.

When you find yourself flinching, you'll know you can look at the relevant uncertainties, and aim to resolve them.

Like you already do, at your best. Like we all already do, at our best.

Just, with a better map for diagnosing and noticing when we aren't at our best, what the ceiling is, and how to get back to where we can see reality for what it is and enjoy playing with what's real.

"Irrationality" is fundamentally a process of insecurity -- of rationally but perhaps not reflectively-consistently deciding that we can't handle the truth. Rationality is finding our way back to the default state. It's opening our eyes and looking, literally and metaphorically.^[19]

1. ^{^}

   And more. There are two more posts coming on limitations and failure.

2. ^{^}

   It happens. Complete honesty is actually a really high bar to manage, and it requires self monitoring on these things quite closely.

   The take away, if you catch yourself bidding dishonestly, isn't "Oh no, I'm a no good liar", it's "Well that was a mistake. Oops".

3. ^{^}

   In the chronic pain example I didn't ask explicitly, but I knew of a bunch of things that I would appear to be missing if I did not address them, so I addressed this question preemptively by showing all the things that I'm not missing, which would ordinarily turn people away from the stance I was taking.

4. ^{^}

   In the "irrational fear of heights" example, when I kept redirecting her to "How do you actually know you're safe up there? Or do you?", that is exactly this.

5. ^{^}

   An example of this is where I was able to help my friend reexperience hypnosis despite her laugher and claims that she couldn't.

6. ^{^}

   In the jacuzzi situation, the sincerity behind the question "I just think if you're worried, it's probably for a good reason... right?" was actively keeping tabs on "Am I taking your perspective seriously enough?", even as I kinda made fun of it.

7. ^{^}

   Similarly, when teasing my cousins girlfriend about being a diva and helping her get back on the horse dirt bike, visibly attending to "Are you [still] okay?" is a big part of what made that work -- though that attention didn't have to be verbalized.

8. ^{^}

   The 'one word pain cure' of "Hurts?" isn't quite asking if he's okay, but it is asking what justifies his belief of not being okay. It still came from him looking less okay than he seemed to me, and it's still asking "Okay, maybe you're not okay. Is that true?".

9. ^{^}

   Note that this turns out to be exactly what I said to the woman at the music festival: "Are you okay? Will you forgive me?". At the time of doing that and even writing about it, I had no idea it'd distill down this cleanly, but it's quite neat that it did.

10. ^{^}

    The situation with the drunk guy at the party is an example of where I had no better option, despite someone with a more privileged epistemic state coming in and demonstrating a more effective response. Still, it was enough, and when I saw him again a year later he made a point to express appreciation.

11. ^{^}

    E.g. someone tells me of their chronic pain, and it's not obvious what to do about it.

12. ^{^}

    And again, this is what we all do in one way or another when we're navigating skillfully enough that we can just expect things to work. It only needs to become explicit when we're struggling to hold that expectation.

13. ^{^}

    He reached out to me again recently, almost a year later, and his pain killer use for this issue has essentially dropped to zero. He said he "basically only takes pain killers for migraines".

14. ^{^}

    Truth and compassion aren't actually at odds, at a fundamental level. It's just harder to figure out how to satisfy both simultaneously, at times. Any high effort resolution on this one will do better by finding ways of having both.

15. ^{^}

    There's an important difference between statements like "2+2=4" and statements like "You will agree and acknowledge that 2+2=4". If you can justify the latter, then you will be able to anticipate they will agree. However, if you can only justify the former, that's not necessarily the case.

    If there's pressure on people to falsify  their beliefs, and it's genuinely not in their best interest to believe or be seen believing "2+2=4", being justifiably correct about "2+2=4" will enable you to hold your ground as you bid for attention and respect, but security will be hard. And as a result, you will be able to anticipate that you can hold your ground and bid hard without feeling pressure to fold, but that they will feel pressure to fold, and will eventually be forced to retreat into insecurity -- or else acknowledge the truth.

    In these cases, where you're focusing on "2+2=4", and not "2+2=4, and it's okay to say that because it's true", you're not trying to resolve disagreements. Because you're not trying to justify the idea that they should agree. In these cases, you're staking a claim and enforcing a filter: "Engage with truth, or your cognitive dissonance will be exposed to you and to any audience that might see". 

    Whether or not this is a good thing in any given situation is a separate question.

16. ^{^}

    And when the interaction doesn't get interrupted before it can run its course, I guess.

17. ^{^}

    As talked about in expectation=intention=setpoint.

18. ^{^}

    What I hope to convey is more than just "I see how those lines can come from what you can justify". I hope to make it clear that nothing else I could have done could have been as good, in expectation, given what I knew.

    Pure empathy without the playful challenge might have gotten her in the pool. I don't mean to say that it couldn't have worked. Same with a more overt and direct approach. I potentially could have said something like "Hey, you. Yeah you. Listen. I have something to tell you that you know to be true in your heart of hearts, yet which you have your reasons for not wanting to listen to. I promise you that if you listen to your heart, and these words, you will be safe, okay, and happy you did. Do you understand? Ready? Okay, great. It doesn't matter what people here think of your looks. If anyone were to get judgy about it that'd make them a jerk, and that would be their problem. You're fine. Enjoy your day ;)". That might have gotten her in the pool too.

    I'm saying that I wasn't confident enough to justify the latter, and I was more than confident enough to justify the former.

    If I had said the latter, I might have ended up with my expectations falsified when she didn't believe in her heart of hearts what I said she would -- and then I'd be left a fish out of water. She might have cut me off -- for whatever reason -- and I wouldn't have a next move because I would have been caught overextending. It's hard to expect people to take you seriously as someone whose words mean anything after you've just demonstrated that you're out of touch with reality.

    If I had said the former, I would be leaving influence on the table. I would be lying by omission, dishonestly conveying that her situation was too scary to even think about. She might have still got in the pool, but she might not have. She'd have noticed that my inability to laugh is evidence that her insecurity might be justified, and as a result might have held onto it longer than she needed to.

    Both might have worked, but neither are optimal relative to the confidences I actually could justify in that moment.

19. ^{^}

    If Valentine's post on Kensho seemed confused or confusing, you might want to try rereading it now.