I agree completely with this; it is *obviously* true, even though many people don't yet recognize it. For a trivial example, just spend a little time around small children, and wait for them to have an absurdly overblown meltdown in response to the smallest imaginable bit of "adversity", like not getting to have a second treat after an entire day of play dates, birthday parties, mini golf, etc.
We all went through that phase, and (nearly) all of us now recognize, at least implicitly, that those meltdowns were simply wrong, unreasonable emotions, that were both wildly out of appropriate scale to the objective magnitude of the disappointment, and wildly unhelpful to our well-being and ability to move forward productively.
Almost anyone who objects to the idea that emotions can be invalid, would also be shocked and disgusted if an adult had a preschooler's meltdown, crying and screaming and laying on the floor, because, say, there was no more coffee in the pot right now. If we can recognize that, we should be able to recognize that there are also some more common adult emotions that are sometimes wrong too, whether in scale, circumstance, or functionality, and also that some people are clearly much more emotionally healthy than some others.
In fact, if you disagree with this post's thesis, just ask yourself honestly who you personally know is the most emotionally healthy, and who is the least. People will immediately come to mind; why, and what are they doing differently from each other, and how do you feel differently about them?
God damn this stupid app, second time it ate my comment. <- See, that right there was probably a wrong emotion. What I wanted to say in my lost comments is that I am utterly gobsmacked that you think this position is uncommon. It seems trivially, obviously true to me and I can not recall ever arguing with anyone about it either. So at least in my circles I would expect that almost everyone would agree with this (except perhaps for certain contrarian types who just disagree for the sake of an argument). But maybe there is a cultural difference here?
> We need to try to walk a golden mean of self-cultivation without self-obsession. To be sure, wrong-feeling is certainly not the worst problem out there, and we shouldn’t lose sight of that.
What are some example "dual indicators" of self-cultivation and absence of self-obsession? For efficiency vs effectiveness it would be the average speed of solving a problem vs solution coverage for a basket-case of problem. In AI research precision and recall would be a classical standard for a ROC graph.
They all point towards "counter-signaling" and how naive direct observation and the goal can be very well be disjointed. People can bluff obsession as cultivation e.g. "life-long learning" for the sake of fun rather than growth. Within the realm of second-order emotional immaturity, is the idea of "canned emotions" with excessive repression and no mitigation (fake it til you make it or [redacted]), instead of first-order cycling of tamper tantrums and forgetfulness. In both cases the core controlling factor of "learning" is absent. https://archive.ph/QZd4chttps://www.lesswrong.com/tag/signaling
I clicked on this post excited for the spicy comment section but nobody’s said anything! I generally agree with the thesis, at least at the current margins in our social discourse. But in the spirit of encouraging discussion that I’m too tired to prompt more thoughtfully:
How DARE you say that (some) emotions are invalid? Someone back me up!
I agree completely with this; it is *obviously* true, even though many people don't yet recognize it. For a trivial example, just spend a little time around small children, and wait for them to have an absurdly overblown meltdown in response to the smallest imaginable bit of "adversity", like not getting to have a second treat after an entire day of play dates, birthday parties, mini golf, etc.
We all went through that phase, and (nearly) all of us now recognize, at least implicitly, that those meltdowns were simply wrong, unreasonable emotions, that were both wildly out of appropriate scale to the objective magnitude of the disappointment, and wildly unhelpful to our well-being and ability to move forward productively.
Almost anyone who objects to the idea that emotions can be invalid, would also be shocked and disgusted if an adult had a preschooler's meltdown, crying and screaming and laying on the floor, because, say, there was no more coffee in the pot right now. If we can recognize that, we should be able to recognize that there are also some more common adult emotions that are sometimes wrong too, whether in scale, circumstance, or functionality, and also that some people are clearly much more emotionally healthy than some others.
In fact, if you disagree with this post's thesis, just ask yourself honestly who you personally know is the most emotionally healthy, and who is the least. People will immediately come to mind; why, and what are they doing differently from each other, and how do you feel differently about them?
God damn this stupid app, second time it ate my comment. <- See, that right there was probably a wrong emotion. What I wanted to say in my lost comments is that I am utterly gobsmacked that you think this position is uncommon. It seems trivially, obviously true to me and I can not recall ever arguing with anyone about it either. So at least in my circles I would expect that almost everyone would agree with this (except perhaps for certain contrarian types who just disagree for the sake of an argument). But maybe there is a cultural difference here?
Lol'd at the tiktok pic haha
> We need to try to walk a golden mean of self-cultivation without self-obsession. To be sure, wrong-feeling is certainly not the worst problem out there, and we shouldn’t lose sight of that.
What are some example "dual indicators" of self-cultivation and absence of self-obsession? For efficiency vs effectiveness it would be the average speed of solving a problem vs solution coverage for a basket-case of problem. In AI research precision and recall would be a classical standard for a ROC graph.
I wish I had an answer, but it is a fantastic question.
For reference only: I got this idea from Ribbonfarm (esp. Gervais Principle on overachivers vs opportunistic slackers) as well as this blog https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office https://swellandcut.com/2017/09/04/the-five-types-of-paired-indicators/
They all point towards "counter-signaling" and how naive direct observation and the goal can be very well be disjointed. People can bluff obsession as cultivation e.g. "life-long learning" for the sake of fun rather than growth. Within the realm of second-order emotional immaturity, is the idea of "canned emotions" with excessive repression and no mitigation (fake it til you make it or [redacted]), instead of first-order cycling of tamper tantrums and forgetfulness. In both cases the core controlling factor of "learning" is absent. https://archive.ph/QZd4c https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/signaling
I clicked on this post excited for the spicy comment section but nobody’s said anything! I generally agree with the thesis, at least at the current margins in our social discourse. But in the spirit of encouraging discussion that I’m too tired to prompt more thoughtfully:
How DARE you say that (some) emotions are invalid? Someone back me up!