I’ve been rereading the early posts of Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions, and will now, as an exercise for myself, try summarize my best understanding of the relevant concepts and how I relate to them using my own jargon:
I will describe two natural clusters
of mental representations “sticky claims” and “surprise meters” and their respective underlying meanings.
“Sticky claims” aren’t by default truth-tracking: they don’t get updated whenever new data comes in. Rather, they exercise their (limited) agency to preserve their existence by directing my focus away from counter-evidence. The standard function of a “sticky claim” in my mind is to act as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I can refer to my “sticky claims” verbally, and they have attached sensory representations. “Sticky claims” I’ve uncovered in my brain have ranged from “It’s dangerous to have money because someone will take it away from me” to “I can’t find the cheese anywhere in the refrigerator” to “I love my brother”. When these are active in my brain I will de disinclined to acquire money, cast my eyes on every shelf in the fridge, and dwell on the positive qualities of a world where my brother doesn’t exist.
I’m sure you can think of “sticky claims” of your own. Think of one now
Together, my “surprise meters” imply my best working model of reality. The rough function of surprise is to alert me when I encounter input that causes an update: data that render an aspect of my model of reality improbable. I do not shy away from disproving them.
I can refer to my “surprise meters” in words, and they have attached models underlying them. Typical examples of “surprise meters” are: “I have very little money in my savings account,” “I recently opened the refrigerator and stared inside without moving my eyes much for about 30 seconds, thinking of cheese,” and “I have a strong intuition that loving my brother is virtuous“, none of which seeks to prevent me from invalidating it by constraining my actions.
Steps for Turning Sticky Claims into Surprise Meters
“Sticky claims” and “surprise meters” behave differently, and I find distinguishing the two is instrumental
. More specifically, the ability to reliably access my surprise meters enables me to update my map
on demand towards consistently picture of the world I exist in.
When I notice myself shying away from reality, cultivating my curiosity allows me to seek truth. Some go-to questions for when I feel stuck are:
- What is the probability the claim is true? What bets would I make about it? (20% chance the cheese has been eaten or moved. 80% chance I haven’t checked the shelf or drawer where it is.)
- What is my evidence for the claim? (It’s not on the shelf I’m looking at right now. I’ve been looking in the fridge for 30 seconds and I haven’t seen it.)
- What is my evidence against the claim? (I remember putting the cheese in the fridge when I bought it. I cannot recall my roommates ever having finished or moved my cheese without informing me. I haven’t checked every shelf and drawer.)
- Imagine, in as much sensory detail as possible, that I will open an envelope with the truth about the claim inside. How do my emotions respond to the prospect of finding out the real answer? (Imagining opening the envelope containing a note informing me whether the cheese is in there I start to doubt my claim that it isn’t. I feel myself not wanting to look–I’m afraid to be wrong.)
Try those questions out on the claims you picked before and see how your perspective shifts.
If following the steps described above does not bring about my desired level of clarity (as evidenced by my contentment), I can tease out the models underlying my “surprise meters” by employing longer-form techniques
I strive not only to recognize that “sticky claims” and “surprise meters” exist as categories and are distinguishable, but also to develop the habit of tagging my verbal statements (spoken either out loud or in my head) as one or the other in real-time.