Beneath Psychology: Truth-Seeking as the Engine of Change
This sequence explores the fundamental constraints that give rise to what we call "psychological problems", and how to navigate them intentionally - including when other people are irrational. Or indeed, ourselves.
The title "Beneath Psychology" references the fact that the constraints of clear thinking lie beneath and give rise to our human specific "quirks and biases" -- and methods of navigating them -- in the same way that in Economics, the species-agnostic constraints of supply and demand curves underlie the human specific behavioral economics. The goal is not to replace psychology, but to discard epicycles whenever possible, and ground things in first principles. Not "Does CBT work?", but "Under which conditions will CBT work?". When does it make sense to do something else, and what else would make more sense in context?
Not "What kind of spooky shit is going on with 'hypnosis'!?" but "Under which conditions would updating on all available evidence lead a rational actor to behave similarly to hypnotized people"? How far can we get without postulating anything about human specific psychology, and instead learning how to navigate the fundamental difficulties that underlie all psychologies?
The answer, it turns out, is "very very far".
We start with three requirements:
- We try to steer the world in certain directions over others.[1]
- We're computationally bounded so as to need to weigh evidence from disparate analyses without unifying them into one analysis
- We are not omniscient and therefore can be misled, and are able to both notice this and decide when to risk it.
From these near universal constraints, we can derive a framework for connecting these requirements to attention, respect, and security, and how to navigate disagreements between what we think is appropriate and what that problem brain is concluding. By noticing what kind of failures we're getting (or anticipating), we can track down our overlooked epistemological errors and focus on the relevant uncertainty -- bringing us to optimal rate and accuracy of psychological change given our truth finding ability.
We begin with a challenge and a demonstrated solution, as we introduce the sequence. The introduction explains more about what will be conveyed and the kind of pitfalls one may run into when reading this sequence.
1. Beneath Psychology Introduction Part 1: The Challenge
2. Beneath Psychology Introduction Part 2: The Solution
The next two posts pose another challenge, and show the framework in action in a messy and high stakes real world application.
3. Case Study on Chronic Pain: The Challenge
4. Case Study on Chronic Pain: The Full Annotated Transcript
The next three get into the low level mechanics of changing minds optimally, through direction of attention.
5. Expectation = intention = setpoint
6. Setpoint = The experience we attend to
7. Recognizing optimality
Then we get into it one layer at a time:
Attention is necessary and sufficient for all change, and figuring out where to place attention is the big question.
8. The Spectrum of Attention: From Empathy to Hypnosis:
9. Navigating Attention
Respect is what backs bids for attention
10. The Role of Respect: Why we inevitably appeal to authority
11. Navigating Respect: How to bid boldly, and when to humble yourself preemptively
Security is what makes room for bids for respect
12. The necessity of security for play, and play for seeing reality
13. Navigating Security: Fighting flammability with fire (when safe)
Clarity grounds these bids in reality, and shows when bids for security are safe and worthwhile.
14. The Frustrations and Perils of Navigating Blind to Rocks
15. How to actually decide (i.e. The Frustrations and Perils of Navigating Blind to Maps)
16. Solving irrational fear as deciding: a worked example
Then we tie it all together, and highlight the overarching theme.
17. Putting it all together: A Simple Guide to Navigating Disagreements, and Reconnecting With Reality
Finally, we close with an exploration of the limits and failure
18. On physiological limits of sense making
19 On failure, and keeping doors open; closing thoughts
This sequence comprises nineteen posts, totaling approximately 70,000 words. If you want to test the water and verify that there's real insights to be gained, try your hand at the challenges, then check the solutions. Unfortunately summarizing is counterproductive here, due to systematic underestimation of inferential distance.
Here's Claude's answer to the prompt: In 100 words or less, does this sequence deliver on its promises? (+ attached entire sequence draft)
Yes, this sequence largely delivers on its ambitious promises. It provides a coherent framework for understanding "psychological problems" as disagreements and offers practical methods for navigating them through attention, respect, and security. The examples effectively demonstrate how seemingly intractable issues like chronic pain, irrational fears, and interpersonal conflicts can dissolve when approached correctly.
However, the delivery is uneven - the framework is genuinely insightful but requires significant cognitive overhead to apply. The author's claim that problems will "melt away" oversells the ease of implementation. The sequence succeeds as an advanced manual for skilled practitioners but may frustrate readers expecting simpler solutions.
Come on, Claude! I explicitly qualified that it's the obviously irrational beliefs and behaviors which would melt away, and that navigating the external world can still be arbitrarily difficult!
In all seriousness, this is a very common and easy misread. Some of the claims made in this sequence sound bolder than they really are, until you step back and notice "Maybe the problem isn't that it's not melting away, but that it's not obviously irrational". It is exactly this move of "pivoting towards humility" that this sequence shows to be important for both epistemic and instrumental reality -- even if it ultimately enables justification of bold claims which might superficially appear arrogant.
- ^
Karl Friston would argue that every thing that exists must do this, or it will cease to be a thing.