"What kind of person do you become, when mechanism and control are your operative lens for viewing the world? Is that the kind of person you want to be? And is that the kind of person you want to share a world with?"
This is an unnecessarily negative framing in my opinion. Trying to understand the mechanisms of how things work can lead to curiosity and wonder. I do, in fact, want to be the kind of person who is curious, and share a world with others who are as well.
Very resonant. Control is an illusion. Responsibility is real though. I think underneath the mechanistic view and idea of control is a subconsciously ingrained feeling of superiority as a species. I'd have to think more though if the mechanistic view gave rise to the subconscious feeling of superiority, or if the feeling of superiority gave rise to the mechanistic view.
Is there a different metaphor you've been preferring?
This read unlocked a better way to think about the world for me. It is true that we don’t fully comprehend the technologies that we create/use for example… it’s close to impossible to imagine all the thinking layers behind ChatGPT, because it has millions of parameters and hence its thinking structure spans thousands of dimensions. We are limited by our ability is to only grasp 3 dimensional structures and matrices. But we summoned this technology with complex mathematics yet we only understand the calculations behind its thinking through its outputs when it’s out here in the wild. And yes, it is so true that we gain control over something with mechanistic thinking and breaking it down!
Really sharp piece on the hidden costs of mechanistic thinking. The tension betwene mechanism and control you outline is fascianting because it suggests mechanism isn't just descriptive but performative; treating systems as billiard balls might actively flatten their complexity over time. In living systems especially, the feedback loops that arise from being observed mechanistically can reshape whats actually observable, dunno if we're stuck measuring only what our tools allow us to see.
fittingly, from a clinical psychology perspective, some of the most effective treatments we know of for personality disorders involves teaching people to experience the world and other people *less* like a collection of billiard balls.
we call the ability to understand the mental states, such as feelings, beliefs, intentions, and desires, that underlie one's own and others' behavior the ability to mentalize. the lack of this mentalizing capacity (basically, only being able to perceive reality as unfeeling billiard balls) underlies many psychopathologies and relational suffering
"What kind of person do you become, when mechanism and control are your operative lens for viewing the world? Is that the kind of person you want to be? And is that the kind of person you want to share a world with?"
This is an unnecessarily negative framing in my opinion. Trying to understand the mechanisms of how things work can lead to curiosity and wonder. I do, in fact, want to be the kind of person who is curious, and share a world with others who are as well.
fair point!
i’ve been hesitant towards rationalism and now i realize my objection is more towards mechanistic understanding
it’s a nice (i studied physics) pursuit, but so limited. thank you for the new word :)
Very resonant. Control is an illusion. Responsibility is real though. I think underneath the mechanistic view and idea of control is a subconsciously ingrained feeling of superiority as a species. I'd have to think more though if the mechanistic view gave rise to the subconscious feeling of superiority, or if the feeling of superiority gave rise to the mechanistic view.
Is there a different metaphor you've been preferring?
This read unlocked a better way to think about the world for me. It is true that we don’t fully comprehend the technologies that we create/use for example… it’s close to impossible to imagine all the thinking layers behind ChatGPT, because it has millions of parameters and hence its thinking structure spans thousands of dimensions. We are limited by our ability is to only grasp 3 dimensional structures and matrices. But we summoned this technology with complex mathematics yet we only understand the calculations behind its thinking through its outputs when it’s out here in the wild. And yes, it is so true that we gain control over something with mechanistic thinking and breaking it down!
Really sharp piece on the hidden costs of mechanistic thinking. The tension betwene mechanism and control you outline is fascianting because it suggests mechanism isn't just descriptive but performative; treating systems as billiard balls might actively flatten their complexity over time. In living systems especially, the feedback loops that arise from being observed mechanistically can reshape whats actually observable, dunno if we're stuck measuring only what our tools allow us to see.
definitely, the view you take informs the kinds of things you see
fittingly, from a clinical psychology perspective, some of the most effective treatments we know of for personality disorders involves teaching people to experience the world and other people *less* like a collection of billiard balls.
we call the ability to understand the mental states, such as feelings, beliefs, intentions, and desires, that underlie one's own and others' behavior the ability to mentalize. the lack of this mentalizing capacity (basically, only being able to perceive reality as unfeeling billiard balls) underlies many psychopathologies and relational suffering