You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I suspect therapy methods work better the more you believe in and trust them. This means there's something harmful about studying how well therapy methods work and publicizing that information, which is that they can cause the methods to work less well.
This gets at a common confusion about what it means to "believe" "true" things. @Meaningness has written some about this, and I'm excited that he's writing more: https://meaningness.com/eggplant/opening …pic.twitter.com/yJj5Sy2f6E
Feeling trust and hope in a therapy method is not a purely mental phenomenon, separated from the world. It has very real physical effects in your body; your autonomic nervous system is doing stuff, your muscle tension is doing stuff, etc.
Inspiration is actually healing; lack of inspiration may make the difference between a therapy method (or whatever else) making progress or not. That's not something I used to appreciate at all.
Above for "therapy method" one can also substitute "spiritual path." This stuff seems to get super complicated. Still pondering all this.
I've evolved into a position where I'm committed to believing true things and building accurate models, while appreciating the raw power of human imagination as a physical machine operating in the world. I'm fine as long as I keep a firewall between belief and imagination.
Imagination generates great raw material to be processed by the model building engine, but must be filtered before the Truth flag gets attached.
In general, I think one bridge from rationality to meta-rationality is doing the two following things: 1. Notice when epistemic rationality diverges from instrumental rationality (like in this case). 2. Take understanding your internal qualia as seriously as the external word.
And hopefully at some point the categories "epistemic rationality" and "instrumental rationality" themselves begin to not seem to carve reality at the joints!
cf. the important difference between "believe" and "believe in" - and both can have naïve or purely faith-based forms, as well as non-naïve forms grounded on some amount of self-trust and personal experience.
Right! I keep wanting to analogize everything to romantic relationships; when you believe in a relationship that's not the same as believing-in-the-rationalist-sense that the relationship is likely to work out, it's choosing to commit to and orient towards it in a particular way.
The other good/bad news is that there's more to "belief" than "I believe". One can say "well, I don't believe in astrology... but still..." and then check their horoscope and feel affected by what they find.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
