I read that book and as I recall, it makes the point that you need to have the intention and motivation to make it work, or else it won't matter. Whereas for me, the reasons I am always considering negative stuff (I just find it important to think in worst-case scenarios for various reasons), completely outweigh any desire I have to be more friendly and likeable.
This has made my marriage difficult at times, and I've realized that I need to change this. What I need is not a how-to book. I need a really really compelling why book. I unfortunately have yet to find one and envy people who naturally care about that stuff.
I also would prefer not to get judgment from people who don't understand why I can't humble myself, as that happens sometimes. I've tried forcing myself to be humble and continue to try every day (I'm married!), but it would be so much nicer if people could convince me about things rationally instead of expecting me to respect their opinions for no reason other than the relationship can become negative otherwise. Of course, we live in reality, not what we wish was reality. So I suppose I will just continue with struggling to figure this out until I hopefully get the answer, knowing full well that it would actually be pretty useful if I could be a more positive and likeable person. I'm actually going for counselling this week for the first time, maybe the professionals can figure it out for me!
I recommend "Tuesdays With Morrie" for a good why book.
Either you value collaboration and the opinions of others, or you don't; there's not much that you can do to reason yourself into or out of it, since it's not really a rational position.
I find dialetheism[0] to be a fulfilling model of mental gymnastics for this 'humbling' you refer to.
An initial glance makes it seem similar to Schrödinger's cat. I do use Schrödinger's cat type thinking to make decisions and think about things when I don't know what the right answer is, so just act as if all scenarios are the right one until I know for sure which is right. I shall look into it, as well as the book. Your point in that there's not much one can do to reason oneself into or out of valuing collaboration and the opinions of others is what I find concerting, as I'm not confident I'd ever find the answer if that's truly the case. And I agree that there does seem to be psychological data that says that is indeed the case. Well, it is what it is. :)
One way to be driven to be more collaborative from a rational motivation, chosen first principle, perspective, is realize you own everything and everyone.
Because you do. The only thing you will ever really have is the reality you can impact around you. So take charge!
Your job isn't just your day job. It is to run and push the planet along a good direction as much as you can, because it is literally your planet. These are all your people.
So learn to "use" people to your best advantage by learning what makes them tick, how to communicate and motivate, how to encourage and help even the people you only see once.
Be a great world leader from the perspective that you are objectively at the center of your world and you really do have the ability to move needles. So move every one you can.
When you do consciously act to move needles forward it's very motivating and self-affirming.
Get the most good out of others and yourself for this planet you own.
Have you read Max Stirner? This is one of the most compelling motivations of egoism I've seen, and the phraseology converges almost directly with Stirner's "The Ego And Its Own."
I just looked him up on Wikipedia and my first impression is he was a very original/independent thinker. :)
I came to that view unconsciously at first, before I recognized it explicitly. It never made sense to me to not care about my net impact carrying on after I die, since it is pretty clear I am going to die, and very soon relative to our home the universe.
Caring about the whole planet, and measuring my self-worth based on that, seems like the only sensible response. And it isn't in conflict with being self-interested at all, it really maximizes self-interest objectively speaking.
My impact will be all of me that survives but it will go on subtly for a very very long time! Go me, lol!
I highly recommend reading it as a comedy, in the vein of inherently absurd shitposts. Stirner's bragadocio really underscores the absurdity of self-interest vis-a-vis the individual's standing with reality.
I very much agree with your position! I came to a similar view, which I only acknowledged in my explicit deconstruction of my beliefs. It's taken me ages to reconverge; Camus, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Stirner finally gave me the confidence to declare: "fuck it, I am my impact, and I'm proud of what I do right."
It's really the most life-affirming philosophy I've found, it helps me walk the fine balance of empathy (tending to self-destruction) and self-interest (tending to dread isolationism, nihilism).
I'd love to keep a dialog as you read Stirner! Let me know if you're interested, I'll give you a line to reach me at :D
Well, if you want to collaborate better, maybe acknowledge to yourself that that's a goal you're deliberately pursuing and therefore you're going to sacrifice other things (probably including reaching the best possible conclusion in individual conversations) because you value good collaboration more. (Of course that only works if you really do value it more).
Keep in mind, rationalism is about "this, therefore that;" the root of rationalism is ratio, as in the multiplicity of proportions which lie between integers. Rationalist thought is "I have these guarantees, what does that mean for this context?" Try inverting it: "I want these contexts, what guarantees allow for their manifestation?"
It's also important to remember that we are animals of habit and change. Valuing collaboration is a habit; sports are a great way to build and exercise it. I'm personally very fond of rowing. There's little else that matches it for enforcing collaboration.
Last, have you ever had an interest in psychedelics? LSD lit a fuse of empathy in my skull, and a lot of this has developed naturally (but not easily nor simply) from my relationship with the absurd.
Four hours ago I would have said "I don't know!". My response was based on the summary that I read online. I got the ePub not long after replying and I'm about halfway.
I'm already a fan. Thanks again.
Only your own life can be that book, you just have to re-read it and see where it went wrong, by your own standards. It’s very good that you’re not humble and can draw clear lines (afaiu), but along with that you have to check flaws in your reasoning and only draw lines where you can see the canvas clearly.
professionals can figure it out for me
A smart move, but be careful to not “outsource” it to them. You are the decision maker, because you are the one responsible (as in “will experience all of the consequences”). They will just go home and eat their dinner.
>I just find it important to think in worst-case scenarios for various reasons
That's the key point. I think about the worst-case scenario as well, it is important. But as long as it does not kill me or leaves me with lifetime super negative impact, I am not spending too much time on it, because it is an inefficient use of my time and brain bandwidth.
The reason is that statistically things turn out fine, usually not perfect but 99.9% not worst case. And most of worse case scenarios are avoided _not_ because _I_ considered and avoided them. Differently said, even if you start with 5 potential really bad outcomes, after a short while 2 or 3 become irrelevant anyway because circumstances.
Being ready for the lucky and positive upside is more efficient in the long run in my experience, and much more pleasant along the way.
It feels like a superpower to me to be positive when I look at all these sad and negative people who don't even realize how much _they_ are hurting themselves, not the circumstances around them.
Oh, I'M not negatively affected by always thinking about worst-case scenarios. It's the people AROUND me who are negatively affected. That's the issue. If I stopped thinking about worst-case scenarios, they would be so much happier talking with me. Natural version of me is like, "screw that."
There is a measure of humility in accepting you have a problem that you don't understand yet and asking for help. Kudos but don't let it get to your head and keep at it :)
This has made my marriage difficult at times, and I've realized that I need to change this. What I need is not a how-to book. I need a really really compelling why book. I unfortunately have yet to find one and envy people who naturally care about that stuff.
I also would prefer not to get judgment from people who don't understand why I can't humble myself, as that happens sometimes. I've tried forcing myself to be humble and continue to try every day (I'm married!), but it would be so much nicer if people could convince me about things rationally instead of expecting me to respect their opinions for no reason other than the relationship can become negative otherwise. Of course, we live in reality, not what we wish was reality. So I suppose I will just continue with struggling to figure this out until I hopefully get the answer, knowing full well that it would actually be pretty useful if I could be a more positive and likeable person. I'm actually going for counselling this week for the first time, maybe the professionals can figure it out for me!