Jan. 7th, 2016
Alief vs belief
Jan. 7th, 2016 11:44 pmAlief vs Belief
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alief_(mental_state)
"an alief is an automatic or habitual belief-like attitude, particularly one that is in tension with a person’s explicit beliefs. For example, a person standing on a transparent balcony may believe that they are safe, but alieve that they are in danger. A person watching a sad movie may believe that the characters are completely fictional, but their aliefs may lead them to cry nonetheless."
This is a distinction I've heard people talking about but didn't have clear in my mind. Especially since, I wouldn't have used "belief" for "non-alief belief" but rather acknowledged that people disagree about what it means to "really" believe something, and coined two contrasting terms, eg. "believe intellectually" vs "believe (EDITED!) instinctually" (alief).
System 1 vs System 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow~
Another topic I've heard talked about is System 1 vs System 2. "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. And the common mental mistake people exhibit attributed to one system or the other.
I've no idea if those two are demonstratively different neurologically, but the type of difference is one I clearly recognise in myself at more than a "those words would agree with anything" level.
But I'm not sure, are these two pairs of contrasting concept describing the same thing, eg. does "alief" basically mean "believe with system 1"
Aliefs aren't bad
Often our instincts are better than anything we can work out intellectually. Most people can speak a language; few people can give a rule for when you use "tall" and when you use "high" etc. Most people can catch a ball, few people can program a robot to do so.
Exorcising aliefs
I'm not sure if this is what the concept is supposed to mean, or if it's my own over-interpretation. But I notice that I can cope if I have simple incorrect aliefs at least somewhat -- I can notice that it comes up, decide to act differently in that situation in future, even if I feel like I shouldn't, and fairly reliably trust my pre-decision rather than my spurious gut reaction. (It's near-impossible if you have to keep re-evaluating in the midst of an evolving situation, though.)
On the other hand, I keep noticing patterns of problems, what I think of as meta-aliefs. Like, I learn that one particular task (at work, but outside my core experience, or in social interaction, or in basic life skills like house maintenance) is within my skills. And another. And another. But whenever I meet a NEW unfamiliar situation, I think "agh, I've no idea how to handle this". I'm not able to convince my brain that it turned out ok basically every single time in the past so I should just assume it will probably turn out ok and not panic and it will be ok...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alief_(mental_state)
"an alief is an automatic or habitual belief-like attitude, particularly one that is in tension with a person’s explicit beliefs. For example, a person standing on a transparent balcony may believe that they are safe, but alieve that they are in danger. A person watching a sad movie may believe that the characters are completely fictional, but their aliefs may lead them to cry nonetheless."
This is a distinction I've heard people talking about but didn't have clear in my mind. Especially since, I wouldn't have used "belief" for "non-alief belief" but rather acknowledged that people disagree about what it means to "really" believe something, and coined two contrasting terms, eg. "believe intellectually" vs "believe (EDITED!) instinctually" (alief).
System 1 vs System 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow~
Another topic I've heard talked about is System 1 vs System 2. "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. And the common mental mistake people exhibit attributed to one system or the other.
I've no idea if those two are demonstratively different neurologically, but the type of difference is one I clearly recognise in myself at more than a "those words would agree with anything" level.
But I'm not sure, are these two pairs of contrasting concept describing the same thing, eg. does "alief" basically mean "believe with system 1"
Aliefs aren't bad
Often our instincts are better than anything we can work out intellectually. Most people can speak a language; few people can give a rule for when you use "tall" and when you use "high" etc. Most people can catch a ball, few people can program a robot to do so.
Exorcising aliefs
I'm not sure if this is what the concept is supposed to mean, or if it's my own over-interpretation. But I notice that I can cope if I have simple incorrect aliefs at least somewhat -- I can notice that it comes up, decide to act differently in that situation in future, even if I feel like I shouldn't, and fairly reliably trust my pre-decision rather than my spurious gut reaction. (It's near-impossible if you have to keep re-evaluating in the midst of an evolving situation, though.)
On the other hand, I keep noticing patterns of problems, what I think of as meta-aliefs. Like, I learn that one particular task (at work, but outside my core experience, or in social interaction, or in basic life skills like house maintenance) is within my skills. And another. And another. But whenever I meet a NEW unfamiliar situation, I think "agh, I've no idea how to handle this". I'm not able to convince my brain that it turned out ok basically every single time in the past so I should just assume it will probably turn out ok and not panic and it will be ok...