-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
Copy pathNature-of-Techniques.html
128 lines (116 loc) · 11.3 KB
/
Nature-of-Techniques.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
<link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="./images/favicon-32x32.png" sizes="32x32" />
<link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="./images/favicon-16x16.png" sizes="16x16" />
<title>Outtakes from the Technique Trap - SPK's Rationality Essays</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="./css/default.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="./css/highlight.css" />
<!-- <script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.10.2/jquery.min.js"></script> -->
<!-- <script type="text/javascript" src="/js/header-links.js"></script> -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML"></script>
<link href="atom.xml" type="application/atom+xml" rel="alternate" title="Sitewide ATOM/RSS Feed" />
<!-- Google Analytics stuff -->
<!-- Google tag (gtag.js) -->
<script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-DEWF2J5BG8"></script>
<script>
window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag('js', new Date());
gtag('config', 'G-DEWF2J5BG8');
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://fast.fonts.net/jsapi/f7f47a40-b25b-44ee-9f9c-cfdfc8bb2741.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<div id="header">
<div id="logo">
<a href="./">SPK's Rationality Essays</a>
</div>
<div id="navigation">
<a href="./">Home</a>
<a href="./notes.html">Notes</a>
<!-- <a href="/about.html">About</a> -->
<a href="./archive.html">Archive</a>
<a href="./atom.xml" type="application/atom+xml" rel="alternate" title="Sitewide ATOM/RSS Feed">RSS</a>
</div>
</div>
<div id="content">
<h1 id="post-title">Outtakes from the Technique Trap</h1>
<!-- <center><img src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t31.0-8/p600x600/10257116_10202295769100492_2438594605053717342_o.jpg" height="400" width="300" class="sujeet-pic" alt="Sujeet pic" /></center> -->
<h1 id="technique-trap-for-smart-kids">Technique Trap for Smart Kids</h1>
<p>A subtler version of the Technique Trap is when you <em>do</em> get empirical evidence for some of your claims.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Hey, I saw it in a peer-reviewed journal. F*ck you. I win.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, the above gentleman has managed to avoid the trap of accepting untested techniques. But, the rabbit hole goes much deeper. Specifically, it doesn’t matter if <em>someone else</em> has got empirical results using the technique. Do <em>you</em> actually possess the technique? Have <em>you</em> correctly interpreted the instructions from the aforementioned peer-reviewed journal? Most importantly, have <em>you</em> actually built up the neural circuits in your brain by taking action in different complex scenarios and getting feedback from some empirical tool? Without that, all you have is the mere ghost of a technique parading as the real, live thing.</p>
<p>I think this is the most common mistake among the smarter self-improvement folk. They push aside the popular self-help books and go straight for the scientific journals. So far so good. But then, they fall prey to the mistake of thinking that just because they have the instructions, they have the technique itself. They may not feel the need to actually build up the technique or measure their progress, especially in areas where empirical measures aren’t common - which is sadly, much of “Rationality”.</p>
<h1 id="making-your-own-grave">Making your own grave</h1>
<p>If you’ve actually exhausted all the empirical techniques in your domain (go check again), then you can start looking at some of the more untested ones to see if they work. Be wary, though. If it really is as great a technique as the seller (blogger, author, TED talker) claims, then why hasn’t it been tested in empirical studies? What, we’re just supposed to take their word for it?</p>
<p>After a while in your field, you may develop a few new “techniques” of your own. Beware! This is the easiest Technique Trap to fall into. Because your own preciousss techniques will seem convincing and obviously valuable, you will be less likely to subject them to rigorous empirical tests. “It works, I know it for sure” has been the path to doom for many an inventor. At the very least, apply all the tests listed here for your “technique”, again and again and again. Make sure you vet your “technique” with several other people and ask <em>them</em> to judge your “technique” using the above standards. Be careful not to use your “technique” to feel superior to others. It’s not proven to work yet. Oh, and, did I mention, what you have is a “technique”, until proven otherwise.</p>
<h1 id="buyer-beware-selling-superiority">Buyer Beware: Selling Superiority</h1>
<p>They believe fervently in the awesomeness of their technique and will end up making you do that too.</p>
<p>So we don’t use techniques for their benefits, but rather for their Epic Awesome <em>potential</em> benefits, which is just a proxy for the superiority we feel.</p>
<p><strong>Corollary</strong>: People aren’t selling techniques. They’re selling superiority.</p>
<p>All those bloggers, lifehackers, lifestyle-designers, how-to magazine writers, and non-fiction authors - they’re selling you means for feeling superior to others. They probably don’t <em>actually</em> use those “techniques” and neither will you.</p>
<p>It’s not “this technique will increase your productivity by X units”, but rather “this technique will increase your <em>superiority</em> by X units.”</p>
<p>Those bloggers or authors are hardly going to put their pet techniques through harsh empirical tests. With all the effort and public commitment they’re putting into their techniques, the authors are easy prey for Affective Death Spirals. Insisting on empirical evidence at each step takes a tremendous amount of determination, especially when seductive alternatives lie in wait. So, they will likely fall straight into the Trap of half-assed “Epic Awesome Techniques”.</p>
<p>So, we sit around reading, writing, and exchanging nothing but means for superiority. The original aim of performance-increase is lost somewhere by the wayside. It’s shiny, empty labels all the way.</p>
<h1 id="sharing-for-superiority---you-should-check-this-out">Sharing for Superiority - “You should check this out!”</h1>
<blockquote>
<p>“Check out this movie. It’s awesome.”</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“You haven’t watched that TV show?! Hey, you’ve missed out on a lot. You <em>have</em> to watch it.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Hidden implication</strong>: If you haven’t watched that TV show (or read that book or learnt about that “technique”), your life is significantly worse than mine. And, therefore, if I have watched the show, my life is significantly better than yours.</p>
<p>We feel that in our bones, when we say or hear those words, even though there is almost <strong>zero</strong> empirical increase in your quality of life because of the show (or book or “technique”).</p>
<p>It’s just to make yourself feel superior.</p>
<p>This is another disquieting corollary of the Net Benefits Hypothesis. You will want to shine light on people’s ignorance of techniques to make yourself feel better.<a href="#fn1" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref1"><sup>1</sup></a></p>
<p>People always have too much on their plate. They’re almost guaranteed to <em>not</em> take up your call for action. So, by “sharing” your technique, you get to feel superior because now they know that you “know” this and thus you get to be in their face. It makes the difference between you feel more real. Every time you need a bit of a boost, you can just remind them about that technique and they’ll say they haven’t got around to it. You get to feel sorry for them and feel awesome about yourself.</p>
<p>Plus, you get to pontificate about how other people are not at all open-minded (unlike you).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Warning Sign: “You should check this out”</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Implicit Meaning: “I did. If you don’t, that means I have one over you.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As usual, you don’t even have to master the technique or apply it a lot or even have a real technique at all. All you have to do is believe you have a technique and make <em>them</em> believe you have a technique and you’re done. Feeling of superiority guaranteed.</p>
<p>Ever wanted to punch a guy who’s pushing a movie on you and saying that you “<em>have</em> to watch this”? Or a guy who’s pushing some new app he found and saying that you “<em>have</em> to check this out”? This was probably why. He was using his “knowledge” of the “technique” to feel superior and make you feel inferior.</p>
<p>This last one suggests that people who care a lot about “self-improvement” (hint hint) and who get <em>very excited</em> about “techniques” are people who’re using those “techniques” to feel superior to others. I think I’ve been guilty of this for a long time now.</p>
<p>Make it a personal rule to never “share” a technique with someone else or tell them they <em>have</em> to check it out. If you really have benefited a lot, they will probably see it and ask you for advice. Use that as a test. If people aren’t asking you, have you really made much progress?</p>
<div class="footnotes">
<hr />
<ol>
<li id="fn1"><p>Hoarding was about making sure nobody else discovered your top-secret, most powerful, Epic Awesome techniques and got their “benefits”.<a href="#fnref1">↩</a></p></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class="info">Created: May 15, 2015</div>
<div class="info">Last modified: September 28, 2019</div>
<div class="info">Status: finished</div>
<div class="info"><b>Tags</b>: Naive Realism, techniques</div>
<br />
<div id="disqus_thread"></div>
<script type="text/javascript">
/* * * CONFIGURATION VARIABLES: EDIT BEFORE PASTING INTO YOUR WEBPAGE * * */
var disqus_shortname = 'spkrationalitytrainingground'; // required: replace example with your forum shortname
var disqus_identifier = '/Nature-of-Techniques.html';
var disqus_title = 'Outtakes from the Technique Trap';
/* * * DON'T EDIT BELOW THIS LINE * * */
(function() {
var dsq = document.createElement('script'); dsq.type = 'text/javascript'; dsq.async = true;
dsq.src = '//' + disqus_shortname + '.disqus.com/embed.js';
(document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(dsq);
})();
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://fast.fonts.net/jsapi/f7f47a40-b25b-44ee-9f9c-cfdfc8bb2741.js"></script>
<noscript>Please enable JavaScript to view the <a href="http://disqus.com/?ref_noscript">comments powered by Disqus.</a></noscript>
<a href="http://disqus.com" class="dsq-brlink">comments powered by <span class="logo-disqus">Disqus</span></a>
</div>
<div id="footer">
Site proudly generated by
<a href="http://jaspervdj.be/hakyll">Hakyll</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>