Thats a fair point, and I agree some people are primed to be defensive- perhaps rightly so. It seems quite common for people make broad cynical assessments of society and others, and then make exceptions, opposite to the opposite.
Part of this is a human inclination to focus on problems that need fixing, and forget what is working well.
As an example, my initial gut inclination is to agree with your condemnation of social definitions of successes (materialistic, commercial, ect). However, when I slow down question it, I don't think it actually matches my personal experience of society. I certainly don't think it is true for myself, my friends, neighbors, and acquaintances, who mostly have views I find much more attractive (e.g. they all think success is living a life of integrity, thoughtfulness, happiness, and love).
Maybe I have done a great job of building a bubble and my personal data is driven by selection bias. However, I am more inclined to think that something similar to the fundamental attribution error[1] is at play when making general judgements about society.
That part of your posts that I don't understand is what seems to be a hostility or cynicism around introspection in general. You say things like:
>[it] actually reveals what they are really more useful for specifically: gain power without any purpose or meaning.
>To what end? Oftentimes, that tale goes...
This comes off (to me), as if you genuinely think these things are bad. If not, Im curious if you expect people to understand you are intentionally being provocative by steel manning a position you dont hold?
> Part of this is a human inclination to focus on problems that need fixing, and forget what is working well.
Look, if you believe that my perception of society is warped, you are of course entitled to that opinion. I think if you look at what's currently going on in the world and come to the conclusion that everything is fine and we should just continue the way we were used to, then that's actually quite cynical in my point of view. Having said that, it was only an example to better explain why my point might hold actual value. Not an attempt to start a discussion about the fundamental attribution error.
> That part of your posts that I don't understand is what seems to be a hostility or cynicism around introspection in general.
I think you are exaggerating a bit. Nowhere have I said that introspection is bad in general. Again, that's an interpretation which appears to stem from a certain kind of (left brained) conditioning in my opinion.
Here's the original context of the comment you seem to be referring to:
> These techniques and mantras for grounding yourself in the present are useful for panic attacks and anxiety, but being honest about your past and future direction are more powerful.
To which I responded:
> Your claim sounds generic, but it actually reveals what they are really more useful for specifically: gain power without any purpose or meaning.
If you have a stone on the one side of the scale, a feather on the other won't balance it. Indicating that the aforementioned techniques are only useful for "panic attacks and anxiety" could come across to some in the same way my comment came across to you? I think such generalized claims deserve similarly direct and generalized responses sometimes as a means of reflection.
> To what end? Oftentimes, that tale goes
I outlined my point regarding that one above sufficiently, I hope. If you don't like it, that's fine. You have at least provided a reasonable response that was specific enough for me to address. Just claiming that someone is "bitter" without pointing out what exactly is the cause for that interpretation is not helpful and hence deserves a different kind of response.
>Indicating that the aforementioned techniques are only useful for "panic attacks and anxiety" could come across to some in the same way my comment came across to you?
but the parent position in this case was rather extreme, denying any consideration of the future or past, saying all that matters is the present. It is one thing to attribute a generic description to a narrow and specific philosophy, and another to to attribute a narrow description to a generic philosophy.
> I think if you look at what's currently going on in the world and come to the conclusion that everything is fine and we should just continue the way we were used to, then that's actually quite cynical in my point of view.
My point was rather that there is a lot of bias in both domestic and foreign events coverage. If you did a global survey of "what's going on", you would probably find a overwhelming majority of people living peaceably, loving their children, and being friendly and kind, ect.
> My past self doesn’t own me. My past self is gone.
> My future self is a thing that doesn’t exist.
> My present self is all the matters.
This is just a description of how it is. Your past self is gone. It only lives in your memory now. Your future self doesn't exist yet. It lives in your imagination now. Therefore, your present self has to be the only thing that matters. The others do not exist and many people would argue that your present self is also just an imagination.
This doesn't take anything away from betterment and personal development. It just puts it where it belongs, which is now.
It might not look so, but there is a stark difference between approaching this with the idea that "if I do X, everything will be fine in the future" vs. "I will try doing X to reach goal Y and re-evaluate when I am there, but I am always capable of accepting the now regardless of the outcome".
> My story about my identity is intended to freeze it where it is. That’s not a bug. That’s called staying alive.
I don't know what the OP wanted to indicate with that. I am not sure I fully grasp the intention behind it. For what it's worth, as I interpret these lines, I don't fully agree with them.
Part of this is a human inclination to focus on problems that need fixing, and forget what is working well.
As an example, my initial gut inclination is to agree with your condemnation of social definitions of successes (materialistic, commercial, ect). However, when I slow down question it, I don't think it actually matches my personal experience of society. I certainly don't think it is true for myself, my friends, neighbors, and acquaintances, who mostly have views I find much more attractive (e.g. they all think success is living a life of integrity, thoughtfulness, happiness, and love).
Maybe I have done a great job of building a bubble and my personal data is driven by selection bias. However, I am more inclined to think that something similar to the fundamental attribution error[1] is at play when making general judgements about society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
That part of your posts that I don't understand is what seems to be a hostility or cynicism around introspection in general. You say things like:
>[it] actually reveals what they are really more useful for specifically: gain power without any purpose or meaning.
>To what end? Oftentimes, that tale goes...
This comes off (to me), as if you genuinely think these things are bad. If not, Im curious if you expect people to understand you are intentionally being provocative by steel manning a position you dont hold?