4 comments
Comment from: m Visitor
Comment from: Constantin Visitor
I would add running to that list. There is something about physical effort that makes other kinds of pain diminish temporarily.
Comment from: gr8dude Member
Constantin, I tried that method and my experience is that it has a quick, but ephemeral effect. My experiments involved bikes, but I ended up with the thought of writing a poem that ends with “but you cannot pedal away from the truth” :-)
m, this method relies on a shortcut derived from how the brain works.
Yes, it is difficult to measure pain, but it is easy to compare pain, if the following assumptions are correct:
- they are experienced by the same person
- an exact result is not needed
For example, I am not looking for an answer such as “toothpain = 67.23434 pu, while hunger is 30.0007 pu (pain units)", I am looking for a simple “toothpain > hunger; is it so indeed?”
Thus the problem is simplified, because I do not need to look for formal methods of measuring something, nor do I need to measure exactly.
To put things in perspective, this is not a “poveste cu zmăi", it is something that is supported by evidence :-)
Daniel Ariely writes in “Predictably irrational” about the fact that people are confronted with a difficult challenge when they have to choose one out of two options. Loss aversion is so strong that we are reluctant to make a choice, being afraid of the fact that if we do not chose the best option, we will lose the benefits we could have enjoyed, had we made the other choice.
Things become much more simple when you add a third option - which is designed to make one of the other two look better. Once that is done, suddenly all the metrics are in place and the decision becomes trivial.
{
Imagine you have 2 options:
- A and B, they are roughly equal
- then you add another option C, such that C << a (obviously worse than A)
A human’s rationale is as follows:
A and B are tough to compare, so I cannot know for sure what to choose. But one thing is certain though - A is much better than C. Final decision = choose A.
If your goal is to bias people towards choosing B, then option C much be chosen in such a way that C is perceived as much worse than B.
}
His experiments demonstrate that this principle works when people have to choose “the prettiest face out of 2″, as well as when they have to “choose the best TV model out of 2″.
In this case, what matters is not that we actually chose the best option (the opposite can be true), but the fact that we think we chose the best option ;-)
So, perception plays a greater role than reality.
Although some new painful experiences can be worse than older ones, if we trick ourselves into believing that whatever we’ve experienced in the past is more significant - the method works.
I never tried your approach, and from what I can figure - it surely is not the shortest route to inner peace. However, I am not sure I interpret your idea correctly.
You say “if we had endless resources for suffering we would suffer less”, and I cannot make sense of it. If “of course i become exhausted before IT is exhausted", then if we had endless resources - we’d never become exhausted, so IT would not be over, ever.
Thank you for the music. a>Comment from: m Visitor
Alex, I wasn’t saying the method fails because it’s impossible to measure pain exactly. I wasn’t saying the method fails. I was just making a side remark about how there’s not much of a measuring going on, because we just assign values to experiences here and now, such that the comparison is already made by the time we assign those values.
Yes, sometimes it only matters that we think we’ve made the best choice. But there are times when it matters to make the best choice. I guess you’ll say this method is devised for those who’re about the get crushed under the weight of the choice without getting the chance to say neither A nor B. Fair enough. I guess I have trouble understanding the scope of this argument. Is it supposed to be rule of thumb? Or is it a consolation (oh, but it could be much worse - C )? Or can it be either depending on the case? That’s also fair enough.
Yes, well, my approach relies on some basic assumptions and, well, facts about me that need not be true for others. And it’s true, i had a particular kind of problem in mind. Conclusion: we all need to be explicit about our pluralism.
As for suffering endlessly, I meant that I find it plausible that with an appropriate amount of suffering (pardon the quantitative language) a problem can be exhausted. Sometimes we need to suffer longer than we have the capacity to. Therefore we must do it in stages, which makes the process longer. I can’t be too sure of this though. All assumptions are up for critique here.
i sort of agree with dr. geekfighter. also, qualia are only quantifiable after you assign values to them (so this is a form of question-begging; also, it’s not easy to decide how much pain units experience x is worth; also, i’m aware you didn’t say this was easy).
my method is to think about IT on and on. i’m always afraid of sweeping things under the rug (i mean, who needs fake neatness?). but i don’t mean to pose as a stoic hero. for me it works better to live it out and exhaust it. of course i become exhausted before IT is exhausted, and the emergency escapism mode takes over temporarily. clearly, escapism slows everything down. if we had endless resources for suffering we would suffer less.
music:
part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KpuusvROd8
part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W94f2vc30nQ&feature=related