Issues with the Litany of Gendlin

Disclaimer: This comment contains a personal story.

I feel like I can weigh in on this since I've recently used Gendlin's Litany to cope with a rough event in my life. Without it, I think I would have been considerably worse-prepared and consequently would have had a very strongly negative emotional response for far longer than I did.

In October of 2011, my partner of six years broke up with me. The main reason she wanted to break up was because she had decided that she was a lesbian, and wasn't interested in having a romantic or sexual relationship with me (a man) any more.

It was incredibly tempting to discount her statements. There are plenty of rationalizations (which any LWer should know are ways of bludgeoning reality into your broken hypothesis) out there for why a lesbian woman of our age group isn't actually lesbian. I actually did this for a few weeks to a month.

When I started being able to want to get back in touch with reality (to even use these litanies, one has to want to use them; I learned during this time of my life that this is a non-trivial precondition), I started thinking of Gendlin's Litany. By remembering it, I was able to realize that: 1.) my ex-partner is indeed gay, 2.) not beliving that doesn't make her any less gay, and 3.) she has always been gay and I had, in fact, been enduring it.

Owning up to it did not make it worse. My partner remained exactly as gay as she was before I updated. Owning up to it did change my strategy to one I think is much better in the long term. I am fairly certain I became more happy after I successfully updated, if anything.

I know this is an old post, but I hope you see this comment. For what it's worth, I think you're fairly correct in your analysis, but maybe you should question the source of this particular cached thought.

As always, it simply depends on your utility function. If you consider avoiding short-term emotional pain as an end in itself, it would of course be in your best interest to engage in various self-deceptive strategies etc.

The users on Less Wrong may well be drastically less likely to have that sort of utility function than the general population, but that doesn't in any way detract from the obvious fact that a utility function can in fact include an ultimate aversion to short-term emotional pain, and there are in fact an absolute ton of people like that.

So can people stand what's true because they're already enduring it? Wait, already enduring what? For somebody like I described above (one who's goal set contains an ultimate aversion to short-term emotional pain), the emotional pain itself is something to endure.

In other words, avoiding thinking about fact A doesn't allow you to not endure A (because of course A will be present whether or not you think about it), but there is in fact something that not thinking about it will do, and that's let you not endure the emotional pain, which may well be extremely important for your utility function.

Tetronian said that the Litany basically says it's silly to refuse to update your map because you're afraid of what you may find, for what's in the territory is already there whether or not you know it. Sure, but for some people the emotions themselves are part of the territory. It's not that they're afraid to update their map; it's that they're afraid to change one section of the territory (their belief structure) because it may make another section undesirable (their emotional landscape or whatever).

The map/territory distinction has proven useful in a lot of ways, but in this conversation it can only distract, for it has a utility function built right into its core--one incompatible with the one incompatible with the Litany. It breaks down when it encounters a utility function that values what's in one's head not necessarily only as an indicator for what's outside, but also simply for its own sake.

Ideally it would communicate: "Lying to yourself will eventually screw you up worse than getting hurt by a truth," instead of "learning new truths has no negative consequences."

There is a subtle but important difference between "Owning up to it doesn't make it worse" and "learning new truths has no negative consequences." The former does not imply a negation of the latter; the Litany is simply saying that refusing to update your map because you are afraid of what you might find is silly, because what's in the territory is already there whether you know it or not.

Most people here prefer global maxima rather than local maxima. The litany of Grendlin is something that helps us take the hit when we transition away from a local maximum. Most people are too averse to unpleasant truths and are imprisoned by their illusions them rather comforted by them to an extent they couldn't acheive with fixing the map. On average this is an admonition our community needs to be something that carries a punch.

I think it is fine as it is.

I think there are horrible truths that can wreck your life if you're not prepared to deal with them.

Name two?

the world is a fundamentally unfair place that will kill you without a second thought if you mess up, and possibly even if you don't.

How does owning up to that make it worse?

In any case, I'd like advice from the people who believe the Litany is inaccurate (or at least are able to model people who believe that) on how to handle the situation.

If you don't believe the Litany, then to hell with the Litany. Seriously. There is, first, a place for doubt: a place for internal debate where you go through a phase of thinking "well, I disagree with this sentiment, but I respect the author, so I should give it the benefit of the doubt." So you doubt. And then you decide, one way or the other.

And if you decide, after the doubt, that the lesson is wrong, then you should not continue to hold up that lesson as an ideal unless you value Rationality more than clear-headed thinking. Do not try to fix it. If you have arrived at a more general principle as a result of your doubts, then explain that general principle. Trying to modify the original lesson to teach the opposite of what it was written to teach will benefit no one whether you are right or wrong.

And if the ritual oomph of an argument is preventing you from judging it right or wrong, then maybe ritual oomph isn't such a good thing after all?

I think it's supposed to be countering the idea that, since it doesn't feel like it's true until you believe it, it feels like believing it makes it true.Perhaps you should say something about that while there are problems caused by believing something is true, they are not the problems caused by it being true. For example, believing in global warming may make you depressed, but it won't increase global temperatures. Realizing you were stupid makes you feel stupid, but it doesn't retroactively make you stupid.

It also might be helpful to mention that, since all the problems caused by believing things are bad are just you feeling bad about them, they can be solved by emotionally acceptance, rather than denial.

Edit: How about something like "Through denial I can change my map, but with the help of acceptance I can change the territory"?

I think it would be interesting to say something like "It is dangerous to meddle with things I do not understand. I hope to meddle, but I first must understand".

I agree with Raemon.

Mostly posting to express my agreement; for group dynamic purposes.

Incidentally, some years before discovering LW I was facing a similar problem to ones that the Tarsky and Gendlin litanies strive to address. The affirmation I came up with was

"You are not choosing whether to have a problem or not. Sure it would be nice not to have a problem, but that's not a choice that is offered. What are you doing is choosing whether to become AWARE of an already existing problem/situation"

I always felt that a major message it was trying to convey was to avoid the reaction you were outlining of feeling bad about depressing truths by telling you that nothing is different from after you learn it. It's telling you to try not to feel bad when you learn the truth to specifically avoid making learning the truth potentially a bad thing.

So the litany is actually trying to fight against truths from being horrible by trying to prepare you to deal with them.

Or am I wrong here?

Some of your beliefs can influence the territory while others can't.

If everyone suddenly stopped to believe that the president of the USA is allowed to command then the president would cease to be powerful.

The map is part of the territory. If you change the map you also change the territory.

For example, scribbling on the map does change the territory if we are talking about the interaction of agents. If you change your strategy then you will also change the strategy of some interacting agents in the territory with respect to yourself.

But the shape of the Earth wouldn't change if everyone suddenly stopped to believe that it isn't flat (with a very high probability at least (as long as this isn't a simulation whose parameters are somehow dependent on what some of us believe ;-)).

Yet if there exists a powerful agent whose actions are dependent on our belief about the shape of Earth then we could influence it by deliberately causing ourselves to believe a falsehood. If doing so would be beneficially then that truth would trump the other.

In conclusion, the 'Litany of Gendlin' is too simplistic. A set of beliefs is rational as long as it is in accordance with our utility-function. It is not rational to believe everything that is true, only if doing so maximizes our expected utility.

So, I'm 10 years late. Nevertheless I'm throwing my two cents into this comment, even if it's just for peace of mind.

Mostly agree with the litany, as I interpret it as saying not that "there are no negative consequences to handling the truth", but saying instead that "the negative consequences of not handling the truth are always worse than the consequences of handling it". However, upon serious inspection I also feel unsure about it, on the corner cases of truths which could have an emotional impact over people (or on me) greater than their concrete impact.

With that said, my suggestion 10 years ago would have been to include the Litany of Gendlin verbatim, accompanied by "yeah, this one might be wrong".

Performatic Rationality should make a healthy effort to ritualize the idea of questioning it's rituals. Also, it should make a healthy effort not to hide arguments that some think are wrong, but about which there isn't (approximate) unanimity yet. What better way to hit both checkboxes than literally including a famous litany you disagree with and then pointing out that it might be wrong?

Telling people they should get over that depression and make good changes to fix the world is important.

The major problem with depression is not lack of belief than one should overcome it, but lack of belief that one can overcome it. The message that there is light at the end of the tunnel is only helpful for showing possibility, not for creating effort.

Negative self-talk doesn't just go away. Managing it so that it doesn't interfere is really difficult.

The Litany of Gendlin does not say that uncomfortable truths are not uncomfortable. It says that this discomfort, standing alone, is not a reason to behave differently.

It is depressing to learn that your significant other cheated on you. But that depression, without more, does not justify any change of behavior (The fact of cheating, on the other hand . . .). Despite the short-term costs of knowing, you will make better decisions knowing the truth. To believe the contrary requires believing that your decisions made with false knowledge are better for you that decisions made with true beliefs.

In short, complying with the Litany of Gendlin is not free. Learning new truths might cause painful emotional reactions. The message of the Litany is that those reactions should not drive your behavior.

ETA: This isn't trying to say that you shouldn't feel. Just that regret over the failure of some false fact is not useful feeling.