Two complementary theories of teen angst: Our homo hypocritus ancestors overtly followed idealistic norms, such as against dominance and bragging, but covertly violated them. They also cheated often on norms of sexual fidelity. An important part of growing up in such a world was learning to see that acts oft deviate from spoken ideals, and to affirm ideals via outrage at such hypocrisy, before one was old enough to have been very hypocritical oneself. And since the young seek to displace the old in the positions of highest status, old hypocrisy makes a good rallying cry.
The special and general theories of hypocrisy were experimentally confirmed even while I was still alive, though I never did complete my unified futility theory. Kurt always said it was logically impossible to do so. But Professor Hanson gives me hope.
By my understanding 'near mode' is referring to a mode of thinking dealing with issues requiring precise, logical steps extending over short intervals of space and time, whereas 'far mode' is referring to a mode of thought dealing with broad ideals and abtractions extending over longer intervals of space and time.
'Near mode' is concerned with specific *means* of attaining ends - precisely things for which you devise algorithms. (weight loss, financial sucess etc, these are all near-mode issues). 'Far' mode' is concerned with the ideals or *ends* themselves and the signaling or presention of these ends, something you can't easily find algorithms for.
It is easy to see that "[]our inborn ideals were adaptive to a world that is long gone, and only then in conjunction with lots of hypocrisy," and therefore that these ideals do not deserve our uncritical allegiance. It is moderately plausible (though no more than that) that "the ideals adults want to imprint on you[ng people] instead seem better adapted to [their] current world."
You do not here explain why hypocrisy will still be necessary *with respect to these new and better ideals*. From other posts, I gather that your answer is that it often benefits the individual to violate the ideals (I suppose this applies both to the old ones, which still have some grip on today's people, and to the new-and-better ones). As a further point you remark that the individual will benefit from *pretending* to subscribe to the ideals, which pretence will be most successful if he *deceives himself* about his level of commitment; thus unconscious hypocrisy has an advantage over the conscious form (though it also is disadvantageous in some respects, a point which I don't believe you have mentioned). And--a final point--natural selection can be expected to be weakening people's natural allegiance to the old, no-longer-appropriate, ideals, and providing natural reinforcement for the new, better ones.
This is mostly plausible and, I think, illuminating. The weakest link: why think that the ideals adults are trying to inculcate in the young, to override their biologically determined natural ideals, make for better adaptation to the current social environment (and how nearly optimal should we expect them to be)?
I wonder if we find hypocrisies more easily as teenagers because socially we needed to develop a way to correct issues / change with the times. Searching out ways that our ideals don't match our actions is a good way of upending the current social structure and then remaking it in a way that (while also containing hypocrisies) fits better with the zeitgeist and moment. Certainly culturally we always need a way to declaim rituals + functions that are no longer useful, and what better than a built-in deficiency to any culture (ie: hypocrisy).
Your second explanation is similar in a lot of respects toPaul Graham's explanation (about 3/4 of the way in), which is that teenagers are designed to be adults, but required by their society to be children.
If you want to know whether teen angst is universal, there are hundreds of other civilizations to look at, present and past. In the same essay Graham says, "I've read a lot of history, and I have not seen a single reference to this supposedly universal fact before the twentieth century."
This doesn't make sense. Near-mode problems are exactly the sort which computers have problems solving because they cannot be easily abstracted away. Far-mode problems are easily solved by computer even if the goals cannot be defined by one.
Suffice this much: we have many books and the entire self-help industry devoted to far-mode issues (from weight loss to financial success) but near-mode issues require us to personally intervene, discover information, build trust networks, etc.
Contrary to your statement, it seems like non-sentient artifacts can work wonders on far-mode problems but sentience seems almost a requirement for near-mode issues.
Yes, but I don't see how this would be contrary to the vast majority of evolved intuitions. If we presume a long hunter-gatherer past followed by a shorter, but linguistic, transhumance period, you're talking about societies with lots of downtime for socialization and politicking. That would be the evolutionary crucible in which human psychology formed and it is much more like our society than the transitional period between settled agriculture and post-industrialism (we even have semi-transhumance in many industries, herding customers rather than goats).
Let's not kid ourselves: social games are difficult, complex and require the mastery of large skill sets. Learning is hard and for social games your rookie mistakes cost you. It's entirely plausible that teen angst represents little more than immense frustration with high stakes learning. A lot of what teenagers see as "hypocrisy" is a mismatch between very simple, single concepts and how those must interlock; it is not uncommon for a teenager, or even someone in their 20s, to profess a utopian belief which is internally inconsistent because it simply was not conceived with a large enough view.
In this respect, "teen angst" is just the social reflection of "calculus angst" or "mean professor syndrome" that happens anytime there is a quick turnaround between learning and use. We see this in industry as well, with high pressure, project-oriented professions having a high burnout rates. High end law firms and even nurses share these qualities because each must rapidly learn a unique case every day or hour.
The posters who are pushing a jarring near/far mode chasm during the teenage years seem to have a better explanation than a problem with evolved intuitions.
To elaborate, the 'teen angst' comes about because near mode reality just doesn't come close to matching far mode ideals. The imagination (far) is in some sense, always more satisfying that the mundane reality (near).
In their imginations (far) teens roar like lions, when they go to actually implement their ideas in reality (near) all that comes out are mouse-like squeaks.
For example: in the IT course , DP (Data Process Modeling) was always more enjoyable than programiing for instance, because creating domain models exercises the imagination and creativity far more than programming, which to be honest is more like walking over broken glass because it requires near-term precise thinking in every step and not putting a foot wrong.
Domain models are far, programming is near. The domain models (far) roar, but unfortunately the detailed implemented code (near) often only squeaks. The angst is caused by the unbearable vast gulf between far mode ideals and the excruiatingly mundane near-mode reality. The reality just doesn't measure up.
Seconded. Also, what Robin takes to be inborn intuitions I take to be the rare periods of activity of mostly passive memes. Intellectuals invent ideas which for the most part replicate from mind to mind as denotatively passive green-beard signals, but within intellectuals, some of the time the denotative content becomes active. Since this content is just, for the most part non-sense made up by intellectuals and subject to very little selection (because it is usually inactive and neutral), when it becomes active it makes trouble for the people who it is active within.
Yes near mode sucks. It will mostly be automated anyway, Bayes, decision theory, goal optimization etc etc and so on and so forth, non-sentient programs can do all that.
Eventually, far mode will dominate, because I'm sure it will always require sentience (conscious deliberation) and it's far more exciting and satisfying. The ideal is for us to spend all our time in far mode, and have the non-sentient AIs do all the near-mode stuff for us. Economics is near. Art is far. So let the automation take-over for achieving the productive results (near mode). Leave the art and the signaling (far mode) to us.
Contray to what Robin says, far mode comes naturally and school aims to try to impose near-mode thinking. But teens just can't stand near-mode for the simple reason that near mode is so fucking boring. (Possibly the reason I yawn loudly and fall asleep every time I try to read a 'Less Wrong' article - except for the fiction ones).
trying to figure out why one might intuit intoxication to be near mode when in fact it is far.
we prob think intoxication is near because we are more likely to have sex or fight, which are near mode activities.
but it is the idealism inspired by intoxication that causes to behave differently. a guy is more likely to fight when drunk because they believe in their cause, whether or not they think it is prudent. a girl likely rationalizes the sex as love or at least romance when she is drunk.
The special and general theories of hypocrisy were experimentally confirmed even while I was still alive, though I never did complete my unified futility theory. Kurt always said it was logically impossible to do so. But Professor Hanson gives me hope.
Steve,
By my understanding 'near mode' is referring to a mode of thinking dealing with issues requiring precise, logical steps extending over short intervals of space and time, whereas 'far mode' is referring to a mode of thought dealing with broad ideals and abtractions extending over longer intervals of space and time.
'Near mode' is concerned with specific *means* of attaining ends - precisely things for which you devise algorithms. (weight loss, financial sucess etc, these are all near-mode issues). 'Far' mode' is concerned with the ideals or *ends* themselves and the signaling or presention of these ends, something you can't easily find algorithms for.
That is my interpretation.
It is easy to see that "[]our inborn ideals were adaptive to a world that is long gone, and only then in conjunction with lots of hypocrisy," and therefore that these ideals do not deserve our uncritical allegiance. It is moderately plausible (though no more than that) that "the ideals adults want to imprint on you[ng people] instead seem better adapted to [their] current world."
You do not here explain why hypocrisy will still be necessary *with respect to these new and better ideals*. From other posts, I gather that your answer is that it often benefits the individual to violate the ideals (I suppose this applies both to the old ones, which still have some grip on today's people, and to the new-and-better ones). As a further point you remark that the individual will benefit from *pretending* to subscribe to the ideals, which pretence will be most successful if he *deceives himself* about his level of commitment; thus unconscious hypocrisy has an advantage over the conscious form (though it also is disadvantageous in some respects, a point which I don't believe you have mentioned). And--a final point--natural selection can be expected to be weakening people's natural allegiance to the old, no-longer-appropriate, ideals, and providing natural reinforcement for the new, better ones.
This is mostly plausible and, I think, illuminating. The weakest link: why think that the ideals adults are trying to inculcate in the young, to override their biologically determined natural ideals, make for better adaptation to the current social environment (and how nearly optimal should we expect them to be)?
A thoughtful post - good job. :)
I wonder if we find hypocrisies more easily as teenagers because socially we needed to develop a way to correct issues / change with the times. Searching out ways that our ideals don't match our actions is a good way of upending the current social structure and then remaking it in a way that (while also containing hypocrisies) fits better with the zeitgeist and moment. Certainly culturally we always need a way to declaim rituals + functions that are no longer useful, and what better than a built-in deficiency to any culture (ie: hypocrisy).
(I wrote more about this post here: http://popculturecurator.tu...
Your second explanation is similar in a lot of respects toPaul Graham's explanation (about 3/4 of the way in), which is that teenagers are designed to be adults, but required by their society to be children.
If you want to know whether teen angst is universal, there are hundreds of other civilizations to look at, present and past. In the same essay Graham says, "I've read a lot of history, and I have not seen a single reference to this supposedly universal fact before the twentieth century."
This doesn't make sense. Near-mode problems are exactly the sort which computers have problems solving because they cannot be easily abstracted away. Far-mode problems are easily solved by computer even if the goals cannot be defined by one.
Suffice this much: we have many books and the entire self-help industry devoted to far-mode issues (from weight loss to financial success) but near-mode issues require us to personally intervene, discover information, build trust networks, etc.
Contrary to your statement, it seems like non-sentient artifacts can work wonders on far-mode problems but sentience seems almost a requirement for near-mode issues.
Yes, but I don't see how this would be contrary to the vast majority of evolved intuitions. If we presume a long hunter-gatherer past followed by a shorter, but linguistic, transhumance period, you're talking about societies with lots of downtime for socialization and politicking. That would be the evolutionary crucible in which human psychology formed and it is much more like our society than the transitional period between settled agriculture and post-industrialism (we even have semi-transhumance in many industries, herding customers rather than goats).
Let's not kid ourselves: social games are difficult, complex and require the mastery of large skill sets. Learning is hard and for social games your rookie mistakes cost you. It's entirely plausible that teen angst represents little more than immense frustration with high stakes learning. A lot of what teenagers see as "hypocrisy" is a mismatch between very simple, single concepts and how those must interlock; it is not uncommon for a teenager, or even someone in their 20s, to profess a utopian belief which is internally inconsistent because it simply was not conceived with a large enough view.
In this respect, "teen angst" is just the social reflection of "calculus angst" or "mean professor syndrome" that happens anytime there is a quick turnaround between learning and use. We see this in industry as well, with high pressure, project-oriented professions having a high burnout rates. High end law firms and even nurses share these qualities because each must rapidly learn a unique case every day or hour.
The posters who are pushing a jarring near/far mode chasm during the teenage years seem to have a better explanation than a problem with evolved intuitions.
I just added to the post.
You give an invalid email address, so I have to tell you this publicly: please check the rules about comment frequency on the about page.
To elaborate, the 'teen angst' comes about because near mode reality just doesn't come close to matching far mode ideals. The imagination (far) is in some sense, always more satisfying that the mundane reality (near).
In their imginations (far) teens roar like lions, when they go to actually implement their ideas in reality (near) all that comes out are mouse-like squeaks.
For example: in the IT course , DP (Data Process Modeling) was always more enjoyable than programiing for instance, because creating domain models exercises the imagination and creativity far more than programming, which to be honest is more like walking over broken glass because it requires near-term precise thinking in every step and not putting a foot wrong.
Domain models are far, programming is near. The domain models (far) roar, but unfortunately the detailed implemented code (near) often only squeaks. The angst is caused by the unbearable vast gulf between far mode ideals and the excruiatingly mundane near-mode reality. The reality just doesn't measure up.
Sounds right to me.
Seconded. Also, what Robin takes to be inborn intuitions I take to be the rare periods of activity of mostly passive memes. Intellectuals invent ideas which for the most part replicate from mind to mind as denotatively passive green-beard signals, but within intellectuals, some of the time the denotative content becomes active. Since this content is just, for the most part non-sense made up by intellectuals and subject to very little selection (because it is usually inactive and neutral), when it becomes active it makes trouble for the people who it is active within.
but psilocybon mushrooms and acid are near.
Yes near mode sucks. It will mostly be automated anyway, Bayes, decision theory, goal optimization etc etc and so on and so forth, non-sentient programs can do all that.
Eventually, far mode will dominate, because I'm sure it will always require sentience (conscious deliberation) and it's far more exciting and satisfying. The ideal is for us to spend all our time in far mode, and have the non-sentient AIs do all the near-mode stuff for us. Economics is near. Art is far. So let the automation take-over for achieving the productive results (near mode). Leave the art and the signaling (far mode) to us.
Contray to what Robin says, far mode comes naturally and school aims to try to impose near-mode thinking. But teens just can't stand near-mode for the simple reason that near mode is so fucking boring. (Possibly the reason I yawn loudly and fall asleep every time I try to read a 'Less Wrong' article - except for the fiction ones).
trying to figure out why one might intuit intoxication to be near mode when in fact it is far.
we prob think intoxication is near because we are more likely to have sex or fight, which are near mode activities.
but it is the idealism inspired by intoxication that causes to behave differently. a guy is more likely to fight when drunk because they believe in their cause, whether or not they think it is prudent. a girl likely rationalizes the sex as love or at least romance when she is drunk.
drunk is far.