Ideally yes. But in my very limited exposure to a therapist, it seems like therapy is far slower and open ended than going to a physician. A physician would not say “I can’t give you an immediate diagnosis, You will have to visit this clinic regularly for an indefinite period to understand what your problem is”. Doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence that I’m going to get anything out of it
> Another way of thinking about this is: don't choose outputs, choose inputs.
What you'll focus on when you look back is how you got there, so choose that carefully.
I'm just saying the journey counts at least as much as the destination, and the journey can start the moment you get to the end of this sentence.
Interestingly this is a staple of Eastern philosophy that I heard growing up. The advise was to focus on our actions but not the fruit of our actions.
Interesting. May I ask why you consider Bayesian updates a “despicable philosophy” ?
> It was always something that radically changed how it was that I understood the world around me, something that made my way of thinking about things shift so dramatically that I had to abandon my old ideas.
If you have examples, I would much appreciate it, although I do not mean to pry.
>May I ask why you consider Bayesian updates a “despicable philosophy”?
For the reason I said in that quote: Bayesian updates require upholding the same structure and considering things in networks of pre-established probabilities. This is very useful for say sportsbetting, or the weather, but in ones day to day life, especially in political circumstances, things often happen that are completely unpredictable because the socially normative prediction algorithms are always set to re-enforce the normative operations of society, making any radical change inconceivably impossible.
>If you have examples, I would much appreciate it, although I do not mean to pry.
I moved towards the Left because it seemed to me that the basis of so called "reasonable" ideologies like libertarianism and general laissez-fare market conditions always held within them notions of "fairness" and that people would "get what they deserved." It seemed to me that this is language more appropriate for disciplining a child, than ordering our society. In a sense, what was conceived of as "rational" by those who supported the systems of power was revealed to me to be nothing more than ideology which justified that power.
I understand now, thanks!
You have identified a weakness of Bayesian thinking in daily life i.e. choosing the priors. Since infinite belief updates are not feasible in the real world, two Bayesian thinkers can have completely different beliefs based on their starting priors.
