the analysis in scott's most recent post i think is completely wrong. should i write a post explaining why and what i think is going on instead
Conversation
Replying to
this is the crux of what i think scott's missing: he takes it for granted that experiencing and acting on fear is fundamentally aversive. not true! that aversion is *learned* like any other. there's only one kind of learning and sometimes it gets applied to internal states
3
23
you could easily imagine seeing a lion, successfully running away from it, and feeling *exhilarated.* wouldn't that feel great? i've almost died before and it felt great. i felt more alive than i had in years
his whole argument turns on this sentence!
5
32
Replying to
Never a bad reason to write a post :)
And in this specific case, I would be interested to hear what you think.
3
Replying to
People don't avoid doing hard things because of generalized "ugh"; they hope that conditions will change to improve the thing of they wait. It's an optimization spiral, not some ineffable irrational "ugh" reflex.
1
2
Replying to
i first read this tweet without noticing the link, as if it was about his now most recent post, "why do i suck?" (posted one hour ago) and thought you came up with cool reasons to explain why he sucks
Replying to
yes, because I think the main thing that has slowly dragged scott down is a lack of vigorous discourse because of his now god-like status in so many spheres. you would be preforming a great public and private service.
2
28
👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆
8
Replying to
That it's possible for fear to be non-aversive doesn't seem to affect his central point, I think? Even if it's possible for it to be non-aversive (and I agree it is), for nearly all people there are contexts in which it isn't, and that's enough to drive motivated reasoning.
2
4
(Also his argument doesn't depend on it being specifically fear that's aversive I think, it's enough for there to be any aversive component in the experience, be it fear or something else.)
2