A recent learning from an error:
I had an unusual case of Typical Mind Fallacy. Our marriage works well because we have similar minds. I tended to assume similar = the same. So I was rather astonished to learn recently that my wife is basing her self-esteem on what she is doing, instead of what she is being. My self-esteem is always based on what I am not what I do, this means I can hate myself for being cowardly or fat or love myself for being smart or strong but there is no requirement at all to use it productively or to do anything at all. For her it is the other way around, she feels she is what she does not what she is. (It sounds like I am very selfish and she is not. May be true.) And a year spent on looking after a baby take a toll on her self-esteem. This means I was doing it entirely the wrong way around, praising her hair, figure, intelligence or sense of humor every time she looked like she is "down" instead of praising her valiant efforts of getting up 3 times a night.
If you look into the mirror, give yourself a thumbs up and say "you are awesome because..." (or if you are depressed: you suck because...) do you finish the sentence with something you are or something you did/achieved? I know it is of course related, yet not the same.
Apparently "are people" and "do people" are a different category and it is good to take this into attention, "are people" are not getting self-esteem from praising what they do and the other way around.
Some people, like me, if I could climb the Mount Everest and would do it, would not feel anything until I figure out what virtue or quality it proves about me. Does it make me smart or tough or what. Some people like my wife is the other way around, she could have an IQ of a million but would not feel proud about it until she actually uses it to achieve something.
So we and perhaps couples / friends with a similar difference will have to take this into account.
Do any psychology interested people know what this two types reduce to, other than me being a selfish ass? :-)
If you look into the mirror, give yourself a thumbs up and say "you are awesome because..." (or if you are depressed: you suck because...) do you finish the sentence with something you are or something you did/achieved?
[pollid:985]
Some people, like me, if I could climb the Mount Everest and would do it, would not feel anything until I figure out what virtue or quality it proves about me
What if you're wrong?
Every everest climber has brain damage.
You may enjoy it cause your brain damaged enough to trick you into enjoying it.
Fascination with risk is on a spectrum. Though it can get much riskier, Risks are well, hazardous and undesirable.
"When I speak of reason or rationalism, all I mean is the conviction that we can learn through criticism of our mistakes and errors, especially through criticism by others, and eventually also through self-criticism. A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others — not by simply taking over another's opinions, but by gladly allowing others to criticize his ideas and by gladly criticizing the ideas of others. The emphasis here is on the idea of criticism or, to be more precise, critical discussion. The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it." - Karl Popper, 'All Life is Problem Solving' (1999)
Karl Popper'a method influences me. I consider errors identified as the main (perhaps only) way to be less wrong.
“Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.”
The German original is somewhat stronger:
"Ihr seid alle Idioten zu glauben, aus Eurer Erfahrung etwas lernen zu können, ich ziehe es vor, aus den Fehlern anderer zu lernen, um eigene Fehler zu vermeiden."
But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff.
So you can't learn from mistakes if you don't discuss the issue at hand with other people?
I consider errors identified as the main (perhaps only) way to be less wrong. Popper emphasized the benefits of making mistakes in public even further.
I have a hard time learning from major errors. Typically, I'll misidentify the cause of the error and end up taking something I did right and changing it for the worse. The fix then requires not just correcting the bad behavior, but also undoing the damage from my previous attempts to rectify things.
I had thought I can't appreciate new clothes well enough, due partly to not having a say in what clothes to buy until recently. ChristianKI gave me an advice on how to tell my relatives what I would like to be given as gifts, and I thought (and think still) it's a good one. however, when I put on something nicer than usual, I noticed that it changed my attitude to some other things, too (I usually don't buy to-go food, reasoning that it can wait until I get home). So on one hand, I got a reasonable advice, and OTOH, I learned that the question itself was not what I should have asked [myself]. I think this is how using LW for personal stuff is done easiest, since the responsibility for a decision still rests with the individual.
I agree that LW tends to be heavily skewed toward reasoning over modeling, looking for counterexamples and other forms of testing. In fact, it's not uncommon to see "explaining away" as a reaction to counterarguments. "Clever arguer" is a common pitfall among people used to thinking of themselves as smart.
Mark Friedenbach's post Leaving LessWrong for a more rational life makes a few criticisms of the way LW approaches rationality. It's not focused enough on empiricism. While he grants that there's lip service payed to empiricism Mark argues that LW isn't empiric enough.
Part of empiricism is learning from errors. How do you deal with learning from your own errors? What was the last substantial errors you made that made you learn and think differently about the issue in question?
Do you have a framework for thinking about the issue of learning through errors? Do you have additional questions regarding the issue of learning through errors that are worth exploring?