Hi Victor, thanks for writing this. I’m also in a phase of questioning the narrative around IP.
I didn’t quite understand a part of you writing, so I gave Claude your article and asked it, ”… isn’t being irrational (from an instrumental sense) an accurate description of a person who takes an action that is harmful to oneself when there are healthier alternative actions available? Even if these actions were developed as a protective mechanism that were rational and healthy in the past.”
This was its response: ------ ” What the author seems to be arguing against is the approach of simply labeling someone’s imposter feelings as “irrational” and expecting that recognition alone to fix the problem. They’re suggesting that:
1. Simply telling someone their feelings are irrational often doesn’t help because these responses are deeply physiological, not just cognitive 2. These feelings developed for legitimate reasons (past experiences of rejection, criticism, etc.) 3. The person might actually be accurately perceiving real social risks in some contexts
The author’s issue isn’t with recognizing that imposter syndrome behaviors may be currently harmful, but with approaches that dismiss these experiences as merely faulty thinking without addressing the underlying nervous system responses and real past experiences that shaped them.
So while “instrumentally irrational” might be technically accurate in describing behaviors that no longer serve someone well, the author is advocating for a more holistic understanding of why these patterns exist and how to address them effectively. ------ Do you think Claude’s interpretation is accurate? What would you change?
Claude’s interpretation is consistent with my view. I would add further emphasis to your description of some actions being instrumentally irrational.
Firstly, it’s not obvious to me that many behaviors that get called irrational really are accurately described as irrational. I have a lot of arguments for why it’s not so clear cut, but I’ll put this aside since my next point stands regardless.
My main point is whether asking if a behavior is irrational is instrumentally useful. I believe that in many cases, it’s not a useful question and has the risk of leading to “false insight” and distracting from more sustainably actionable insights. If you could only ever ask one question to learn from a past scenario, I can’t imagine it ever being worthwhile asking.
Better questions to consider:
What led to things happening the way that they did?
How might I realistically have acted differently without having the benefit of hindsight?
If the same scenario occurred again, what would be my priority in approaching things differently?
So my opinion is, in the context of behavioral change, labelling the behavior as rational or irrational offers limited utility. Fixating on this distinction has some risk of being net negative, and in some cases being significantly harmful (e.g. when used in relationships and therapy).
Hi Victor, thanks for writing this. I’m also in a phase of questioning the narrative around IP.
I didn’t quite understand a part of you writing, so I gave Claude your article and asked it, ”… isn’t being irrational (from an instrumental sense) an accurate description of a person who takes an action that is harmful to oneself when there are healthier alternative actions available? Even if these actions were developed as a protective mechanism that were rational and healthy in the past.”
This was its response:
------
” What the author seems to be arguing against is the approach of simply labeling someone’s imposter feelings as “irrational” and expecting that recognition alone to fix the problem. They’re suggesting that:
1. Simply telling someone their feelings are irrational often doesn’t help because these responses are deeply physiological, not just cognitive
2. These feelings developed for legitimate reasons (past experiences of rejection, criticism, etc.)
3. The person might actually be accurately perceiving real social risks in some contexts
The author’s issue isn’t with recognizing that imposter syndrome behaviors may be currently harmful, but with approaches that dismiss these experiences as merely faulty thinking without addressing the underlying nervous system responses and real past experiences that shaped them.
So while “instrumentally irrational” might be technically accurate in describing behaviors that no longer serve someone well, the author is advocating for a more holistic understanding of why these patterns exist and how to address them effectively.
------
Do you think Claude’s interpretation is accurate? What would you change?
Claude’s interpretation is consistent with my view. I would add further emphasis to your description of some actions being instrumentally irrational.
Firstly, it’s not obvious to me that many behaviors that get called irrational really are accurately described as irrational. I have a lot of arguments for why it’s not so clear cut, but I’ll put this aside since my next point stands regardless.
My main point is whether asking if a behavior is irrational is instrumentally useful. I believe that in many cases, it’s not a useful question and has the risk of leading to “false insight” and distracting from more sustainably actionable insights. If you could only ever ask one question to learn from a past scenario, I can’t imagine it ever being worthwhile asking.
Better questions to consider:
What led to things happening the way that they did?
How might I realistically have acted differently without having the benefit of hindsight?
If the same scenario occurred again, what would be my priority in approaching things differently?
So my opinion is, in the context of behavioral change, labelling the behavior as rational or irrational offers limited utility. Fixating on this distinction has some risk of being net negative, and in some cases being significantly harmful (e.g. when used in relationships and therapy).