practical themes in motivating us to conceptualise problems by their fixable components — Judaka

I'd like to distinguish first that a problem has internal aspects and external aspects; or mental and physical, if you like. Suppose for example, I problematise my hair in some way; I can try and deal with it physically, get a hair cut or a wig, or a transplant, or a hat; or I can try and deal with it psychologically by learning to love the frizz, or the bald patch, or whatever, and learning to not care so much about the looks and comments of others. I can even attempt a social change - start a 'slap-heads rights' movement or something (I count that as external to self).

Fixable factors represent things like habits, routine, thought patterns, attitudes, methodology, education and any category typically characterisable as actionable. — Judaka

Here you seem to be focussed on internal aspects, and internal aspects cannot be operated on in the same way as external ones. In seeking to fix the mind, one necessarily creates a division in the mind between the mind that needs fixing and the mind that is going to fix it. This comes out very clearly when one seeks to deal with habits. The smoker, it is, who wants to stop smoking, and the smoker's will to stop is in conflict with the smoker's will to smoke. Whose will will be stronger? The smoker's of course, because that is the only one there is.

Habits are formed by the mind, and in order to change one's habit, one has to change one's mind. How does the mind change the mind, without first changing its mind? On the other hand, it is very easy to change one's mind if one has a mind to, but the trick is to be single minded, and then one has no problem.

In the universe the difficult things are done as if they are easy.
In the universe great acts are made up of small deeds.
The sage does not attempt anything very big,
And thus achieves greatness.

Easy promises make for little trust.
Taking things lightly results in great difficulty.
Because the sage always confronts difficulties,
He never experiences them. — Lao Tzu

(my emphasis)

For me it's the things we should fix but can't see that matter most - biases, values, patterns of thinking and behavior that seem normal to us but are harmful or self-sabotaging. They aren't unfixable but it sometimes takes a serious mishap or situational crisis to highlight the problem to us. It's then in crisis that we may decide to make vital changes. Sometimes the changes endure, sometimes they don't. Sometimes it's too late.

Rarely will ever anyone say, "Yes, I worked hard, but I had the right connections & genetics, and that's what really mattered", or anything along those lines. — Judaka

I saw an interview with a successful actor recently (I forget who) he said that his success was attributable to luck and knowing the right people. Most ambitious people work hard, but only some succeed. Many of the wealthy and successful people I've met have said similar things about the role of timing and good fortune. I suspect there are cultural differences in how people interpret their success.

Because the sage always confronts difficulties,
He never experiences them. — Lao Tzu

I rarely make sense of Lao Tzu. How does confronting a difficulty allow you not to experience it?

In seeking to fix the mind, one necessarily creates a division in the mind between the mind that needs fixing and the mind that is going to fix it. — unenlightened

Construe the act of replacing a habit, and of not making that effort, as one's choices. There are no contradictions in having a desire to change, enacting changes and the current state one desires to change.

Contradictory desires are unavoidable. Their mutual exclusivity isn't present in the mind. Wanting to avoid the health risks of smoking and wanting to smoke are logically consistent with each other, within the mind. The contradiction is in the incompatibility of these two desires in the real world. One isn't split between wanting to avoid the health risks of smoking and wanting to smoke, one wants both, they just can't have both.

If one chooses to quit smoking but continues to smoke, there is no contradiction here either. The mind is not static. When free of the urge to smoke, one chooses to quit, and when under the urge to smoke, one chooses to smoke. That the act to smoke contradicts the choice to quit isn't a contradiction within the mind at any single point in time. The contradiction appears that way only when judging the mind across time, but this is due to changes in conditions, not a state of contradiction.

Habits are formed by the mind, and in order to change one's habit, one has to change one's mind. How does the mind change the mind, without first changing its mind? — unenlightened

A desire to change one's habit can co-exist with that habit. You're creating contradictions that don't exist. Your role in choosing how to express these concepts is responsible for producing them, just express the same ideas differently and they won't be present any longer. Our desires don't contradict each other within our minds, they contradict each other in the real world.

How does the mind change the mind, without first changing its mind? On the other hand, it is very easy to change one's mind if one has a mind to, but the trick is to be single minded, and then one has no problem. — unenlightened

When two desires contradict each other, just remove one of the desires, to become single-minded, is that your solution?

Willpower, and the popular conceptualisation of will, as ever, are asinine. I had thought you were arguing the same, but then how did you reach this conclusion?

An approach that entails giving oneself orders, for the will to subjugate itself, to itself.

I'll bet, that in your mind, logically, if one became single-minded, the problem would be solved, so if the problem remains, then they can't have become single-minded yet. You perceive one's desire to smoke through their act of smoking, and so long as they continue smoking, the desire must be there.

In cases like this, it is simply unthinkable for anyone to have seriously attempted something like quitting smoking, and never once resented their contradictory desire to do the very thing that they're trying to quit. The very thing that thwarts their efforts every time, what possibility is there that anyone wouldn't at some point wish it would disappear?

This conceptualisation has no way to know itself as false, the method is only known to have been applied under circumstances of success. Give me a model for acknowledging the attempts at the method that fail and I'll re-evaluate it. Every time I encounter this willpower concept, it's always absent. It's just "If they wanted to succeed, they would've, so they mustn't have wanted it enough". I think if you actually acknowledge how often this approach fails, then it goes from a 100% success rate to 0.0001%, as it really is.

Each situation is multifaceted and complex, and attempts to simplify and conceptualise in ways that provide easy solutions is the very thing I'm criticising. If it's so simple, is everyone who fails just weak-willed and a fool? How can failure deserve anything but derision when the solution is something a 6-year-old could come up with?

Wanting to avoid the health risks of smoking and wanting to smoke are logically consistent with each other, within the mind. The contradiction is in the incompatibility of these two desires in the real world. One isn't split between wanting to avoid the health risks of smoking and wanting to smoke, one wants both, they just can't have both. — Judaka

So because one does not live and smoke in the mind, but in the real world, one has to make up one's mind. Otherwise, one remains in two minds about it; that is in the contradiction of wanting to smoke and not to smoke.

In cases like this, it is simply unthinkable for anyone to have seriously attempted something like quitting smoking, and never once resented their contradictory desire to do the very thing that they're trying to quit. The very thing that thwarts their efforts every time, what possibility is there that anyone wouldn't at some point wish it would disappear? — Judaka

In the case of smoking, trying to stop and failing, and then stopping with no difficulty at all, I speak from personal experience. It is simply a fact that not doing something that one no longer wishes to do is the easiest thing in the world.

If it's so simple, is everyone who fails just weak-willed and a fool? How can failure deserve anything but derision when the solution is something a 6-year-old could come up with? — Judaka

It is that simple, but when one wants to want what one does not want, it becomes not just complicated, but painful and almost impossible. There is no derision on my part, though, because I have been in that conflict and contradiction, and have resolved it by understanding the whole of it from the inside rather than by trying to fix it.

How does confronting a difficulty allow you not to experience it? — Tom Storm

I was hoping my post was an illustration of that. I don't think I can explain it much better. When one has a problem, it is generally the result of a psychological conflict. Such a conflict can be resolved instantly by seeing the whole of it from the inside, which means by fully, consciously, being both sides of the conflict. If I am the conflict, I no longer experience the conflict. As long as I am being one side of the conflict, I experience the other side of the conflict as the problem.

Unfortunately, until one does it, this is just a pile of words that sort of might make theoretical sense, but doesn't actually do anything.

It is that simple. — unenlightened

As I said, a model with no way of proving itself wrong can produce a 100% success rate, your analysis is permanently rooted in hindsight. After something happens, you can say whatever you want about it. If every time it rains, you want to say it's because God had a bad day, sure, why not. You'd never be able to know if God had a bad day and it didn't rain, so there'd be no way for you to know if you were wrong.

If you tell someone, "Go and become single-minded", or however else you'd like, then it becomes a method, and we get to see how good your method is. Or bad it is, to be more precise.

So long as becoming single-minded isn't something that can be attempted and failed, and you're allowed to only say it occurred after you see the result, then it isn't a real method. I could make up whatever shit I wanted to doing that, and so can you.

So long as becoming single-minded isn't something that can be attempted and failed, and you're allowed to only say it occurred after you see the result, then it isn't a real method. — Judaka

It isn't a method, you are quite correct. But if what I say is unhelpful, carry on by all means with your topic, and I will interrupt no more.

Such a conflict can be resolved instantly by seeing the whole of it from the inside, which means by fully, consciously, being both sides of the conflict. If I am the conflict, I no longer experience the conflict. As long as I am being one side of the conflict, I experience the other side of the conflict as the problem. — unenlightened

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. I'm unclear how this would work in practice (how would one become both sides of a conflict?) but I kind of see the argument as a theoretical position. Interesting.

(how would one become both sides of a conflict? — Tom Storm

Yes, that is where the words stop; there is no how, no method. You know, there are 'methods' for relaxing, but they are actually not methods but distractions that allow relaxation to just happen while Mr Analysis is concentrating on his breathing or some such and stops 'trying to relax'. Trying to be whole is like trying to relax, it has the opposite effect.

Trying to be whole is like trying to relax, it has the opposite effect — unenlightened

Yes, this I get. I've made the same point many times. :up:

Do you have the patience to wait
Till your mud settles and the water is clear?
Can you remain unmoving
Till the right action arises by itself? — Lao Tzu again

Yes.

This is my method psychologically, but don't apply it externally; don't wait for the roof to mend itself, or even for yourself to spontaneously become a roofing expert. :wink:

Interesting OP, @Judaka!

That for those who maximise fixable components in their conceptualisations, anyone's circumstances are always thought of as drastically improvable, and nothing ever inspires any change in that assessment. — Judaka

I see two questions here: motivation and adequacy. The first concerns whether one is motivated to change; the second concerns one's sense of self-adequacy.

Regarding emphasizing either the fixable or the unfixable, if we are concerned with motivation then the fixable emphasis will be optimal, whereas if we are concerned with adequacy then the unfixable emphasis will be optimal. If someone needs to be motivated to act, then they should focus on the fixable because this will bolster the sense that their actions will not be in vain. If someone needs to be reminded of their adequacy, then they should consider the unfixable and further realize that not everything is their fault. Many of the bad things that have happened to them are beyond their control, and are therefore not an indication of their inadequacy.

Of course avoidance of despair will involve all of these things, because hopelessness can come from the listless absence of motivation and from a crushing sense of inadequacy. There are certainly other ways to address despair, motivation, and adequacy, but I wanted to stick to the OP's notions of the fixable and the unfixable.

Factors beyond one's ability to control can be enormously influential, even if it's unpalatable for people to hear. — Judaka

At other times, I'm not sure. I generally lean towards problems being systemic and difficult to fix, and I find the explanations given for maximising fixable factors unconvincing. — Judaka

I see individualism as a large part of the problem here, because it tends to overemphasize personal responsibility. I still prefer individualism to a strong collectivism, but it has its dangers. The proverb comes to mind:

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit. — Greek Proverb

In this case rather than looking at problems as fixable and unfixable, we should look at them as short-term fixable and long-term fixable. Those who believe in quietly contributing to long-term solutions with patience will also tend to view their own long-term problems with patience, rather than despair. They will be more willing to inherit the burden of entrenched problems. They will be more appreciative of the slow, steady progress that has already been accomplished which no one seems to notice (e.g. the ancient oak trees surrounding them). Some realities are very difficult to change, and in order to appreciate these changes we must set aside our measuring tools which measure web responses in milliseconds. Focusing too heavily on the individual undercuts the fact that the causal nexus which shapes our life extends thousands of years before our birth, and this focus also deters us from planting trees in old age. "One sows and another reaps" (John 4).

Regarding emphasizing either the fixable or the unfixable, if we are concerned with motivation then the fixable emphasis will be optimal, whereas if we are concerned with adequacy then the unfixable emphasis will be optimal. If someone needs to be motivated to act, then they should focus on the fixable because this will bolster the sense that their actions will not be in vain. — Leontiskos

Would you agree that the impact of emphasising fixability on self-image is greater and less manageable than the impact of a balanced approach or emphasising unfixable factors on motivation? Interpreting a strong emphasis on unfixable factors as justifying a defeatist attitude is equally toxic, to be sure. However, a balanced approach, or even an emphasis on unfixable factors, wouldn't detract from the possibility of noteworthy improvements. Motivation can come from this possibility.

I do agree with your pragmatic approach of conceptualising based on one's circumstances, but it flows against the pragmatic approach of how one should approach a highly fixable problem. If the inadequacy is produced by an emphasis on the fixable factors, and one perceives a problem as fixable, then switching to blame unfixable factors upon recognising their feelings of inadequacy will be damned.

It goes against the spirit of the trial and error process, setbacks in a context of a fixable problem should be responded to by promoting a positive outlook and perseverance. Such a move of switching to emphasising unfixable factors would draw a lot of criticism for many different reasons. Is that something you can also foresee, and do you agree it's a problem for your proposal?

I see individualism as a large part of the problem here, because it tends to overemphasize personal responsibility. I still prefer individualism to a strong collectivism, but it has its dangers. — Leontiskos

Individual agency, responsibility, and self-reliance are themes of individualism. One is encouraged to focus on their own abilities, actions, and choices as the primary determinants of their outcomes. One is expected to take personal responsibility for their successes and failures, and a focus on unfixable factors is antithetical to that.

Within collectivism, there are still strong themes of personal responsibility. High expectations are placed on individuals, and failure to meet these expectations will be perceived as a personal failure. There's less of a focus on individual differences, and an inability to match the outcomes of your peers might be interpreted more harshly than within individualism. Societal norms and group standards are applied to everyone equally, and the focus on fixability might take a more critical form. It is harder to blame unfixable factors within a collectivist society because they're not affecting everyone. Those who fail to meet these standards, even if unfixable factors are blamed, will not be looked upon kindly.

Natural human biases seem sufficient to me to explain why we're largely focused on fixable factors. Unfixable factors also tend to be highly complex, requiring a sophisticated understanding, while fixable factors are generally simple, and one naturally has familiarity with the relevant concepts.

Perhaps we can agree that it does manifest differently within individualist vs collectivist societies though. As for which one is more likely to maximise fixable factors, it's hard to say, I'm not sure. Individualistic societies might place a stronger emphasis, but expectations of success in personal outcomes are higher in collectivist cultures, and that produces a similar effect.

In this case rather than looking at problems as fixable and unfixable, we should look at them as short-term fixable and long-term fixable. — Leontiskos

Both individualistic and collectivist cultures will involve comparing people to each other and focusing on personal outcomes. I wonder whether such a philosophical approach can ever represent the average person's mentality, though I feel that yours is a healthier approach than many of the others.

Those who believe in quietly contributing to long-term solutions with patience will also tend to view their own long-term problems with patience, rather than despair. — Leontiskos

I think you're right to bring up the importance of patience, it's something I overlooked. A strong emphasis on fixability combined with impatience is a dangerous combination and naturally leads one to despair. This topic of impatience is too complex for me to talk about right away, maybe I'll have more to say about it later.

Very well said.

It goes against the spirit of the trial and error process, setbacks in a context of a fixable problem should be responded to by promoting a positive outlook and perseverance. Such a move of switching to emphasising unfixable factors would draw a lot of criticism for many different reasons. Is that something you can also foresee, and do you agree it's a problem for your proposal? — Judaka

Here I would want to distinguish between what is perceived to be fixable and what an agent is actually able to fix. The second important distinction is whether we are focused on the agents or the problem. Are we looking to maximize the contribution of the agents and promote their general well-being, or are we looking to solve a problem irrespective of agent-considerations? Once both of these distinctions are taken into account I think the murkiness clears up.

If the inadequacy is produced by an emphasis on the fixable factors, and one perceives a problem as fixable, then switching to blame unfixable factors upon recognising their feelings of inadequacy will be damned. — Judaka

Recalling the first distinction, the problem is perceived to be fixable, but the agent is not able to fix it and thus experiences inadequacy. This of course gets at the fact that not all problems are equally fixable by every agent, but the second distinction also comes into play: are we solicitous for the agent or the problem? If we are solicitous for the agent we might help them fix it, or let them take a break, etc. If we are solicitous for the problem we might drive them harder and hope they figure it out, or we might also help them fix it, or we might replace them with someone who is more skilled, etc.

But the main point is that one must take into account whether a particular agent is able to fix a problem. If not, then calling it 'fixable' is a fiction vis-à-vis that agent.

Perhaps we can agree that it does manifest differently within individualist vs collectivist societies though... — Judaka

My point was that individualists tend to limit their horizon to what an individual can produce, and since an individual can produce less than what a collective or multiple generations of a collective can produce, individualists will perceive long-term fixable problems to be unfixable. Indeed, they are unfixable if the individual must do it themselves.

Natural human biases seem sufficient to me to explain why we're largely focused on fixable factors. Unfixable factors also tend to be highly complex, requiring a sophisticated understanding, while fixable factors are generally simple, and one naturally has familiarity with the relevant concepts. — Judaka

Applying one's energies to what is attainable is not biased, it is rational and realistic. I tried to give a reason to focus on the unfixable, namely adequacy. What would be your reason for focusing on the unfixable? If you think we focus too much on the fixable, then what reason do you offer for why we should focus on the unfixable instead?

Both individualistic and collectivist cultures will involve comparing people to each other and focusing on personal outcomes. I wonder whether such a philosophical approach can ever represent the average person's mentality, though I feel that yours is a healthier approach than many of the others. — Judaka

Consider a long-term project: carving Crazy Horse Memorial. Are you of the mind that an individualist society conceives of the feasibility of this task in the same manner that a collectivist society does? Remember that many of the laborers and donors will never see its completion.

I've been speaking in the context of self-help and personal outcomes. I had thought the last part of your previous comment strange but I failed to make the connection that we were talking about different things.

It still makes sense to talk about this topic outside of personal outcomes, but I'd prefer to deal with a narrower context. I'm struggling to contextualise your statements, and I'm not sure what context you're imagining that I'm using.

Also, while this issue of fixability emphasis is important for personal outcomes, whether it's important in other contexts or not, I'm not as sure. Fixability, for me, is largely defined by actionability, and within a group context, actionability is complicated by politics, so the terms don't necessarily translate well.

When you talked about individualism and personal responsibility, I thought this was in reference to issues like poverty, obesity or mental health etc. In terms of thinking about someone as a victim of poverty and the economic situation, or being responsible for their own situation - and for getting themselves out of it.

Sorry if my OP was unclear, but I had been talking about an individual's capability in influencing personal outcomes, not societal-level outcomes. :worry:

Sorry if my OP was unclear, but I had been talking about an individual's capability in influencing personal outcomes, not societal-level outcomes. — Judaka

No worries. There was an ambiguity that I didn't quite understand, but I wrote my posts in such a way that they would apply both to personal outcomes and to a wider scope. Everything I have written should apply to personal outcomes, with the exception of the clause, "or we might replace them with someone who is more skilled."

Again, the reason I focused on adequacy is because I wanted to provide a realistic route to the balance that you seek between focusing on the fixable and focusing on the unfixable. If you seek such a balance, then what reason would you offer for focusing on the unfixable?

I had thought the last part of your previous comment strange but I failed to make the connection that we were talking about different things. — Judaka

The last part of my first post which regards the proverb about old men planting trees is related to personal outcomes because our horizon of possibility is shaped by our environment and our general beliefs. The concepts must be analogized to a personal context. For example, the tree could signify a long-term solution that is beyond one's personal reach; the seeds could signify a contribution which seems inadequate, but which might bear fruit in time with good fortune and help from other causal or personal inputs. To simplify, the individualist takes a short-term view and tends to restrict their consideration of agency to themselves, whereas non-individualists do not.

The old man planting trees has hope even though he cannot foresee or guarantee that his efforts will bring success, and his hope is not limited to societal outcomes, but also overflows into his personal goals and difficulties. That sort of society becomes great not because there are lots of literal trees providing shade. It becomes great because the citizens have selfless, cooperative habits, but also because they have hope, they have patience, they do not narrow their horizon of possibility to what the individual can accomplish, and they do not limit the time horizon to their own lifetime. If an overemphasis on fixability produces feelings of frustration, incompetence, impotence, inadequacy, and despair, then this remedy is to the point.

No worries. There was an ambiguity that I didn't quite understand, but I wrote my posts in such a way that they would apply both to personal outcomes and to a wider scope. — Leontiskos

The contexts are so different that I would read the same words differently based on whether I thought the context was personal outcomes, societal-level outcomes or both. I imagine the same is true for you in reading me. But nonetheless, such is the difficulty of communication, misunderstandings usually just go under the radar, and thus appear far less common than they are. Since my OP is responsible for establishing the context out of nothing, I should be more explicit in the future.

Applying one's energies to what is attainable is not biased, it is rational and realistic. I tried to give a reason to focus on the unfixable, namely adequacy. What would be your reason for focusing on the unfixable? If you think we focus too much on the fixable, then what reason do you offer for why we should focus on the unfixable instead? — Leontiskos

Looking for that which is attainable is itself a bias, and this topic requires us to choose between competing narratives, that can't be separated simply into right and wrong.

I want to go a bit deeper into the terms "focus" and "emphasis". I was using these terms interchangeably in my OP, but thinking about your comment made me realise my mistake. While they can be used interchangeably sometimes, the difference between these two terms for me is that focus merely directs attention, whereas emphasis asserts importance. That's a very important difference because here, within the context of action, we should direct our attention towards - or focus - on what's actionable and what's attainable.

A focus on actionable factors wouldn't cause feelings of inadequacy within the appropriate context of "doing", only emphasising the importance of these factors would do that.

Basically, having already conceptualised something and then focusing on improvable components for practicality's sake is completely agreeable to me. It's partly because we can sharpen our context like this that I disagree with emphasising fixable factors while forming our perspective on an issue. I believe the mistake made by many pragmatically-minded people is in viewing the way their conceptualisations emphasise fixability as being pragmatic.

While there's nothing wrong with a bias on what is attainable within the context of action, there is something wrong with it within the context of conceptualisation. To think of fixable factors as being largely determinate of outcomes due to one's biases or as a conscious choice is what creates feelings of inadequacy and many of the other issues I described in the OP.

I don't necessarily think we should emphasise unfixable factors instead, and I am still working out exactly which biases I would advocate for. What I do feel is that "the truth" is just monstrous. How could we ever know when there are so many factors involved without even knowing the extent of each factor's influence? And then there being so many possible solutions or responses to those influences, that they might be mitigated or changed. I have a lot of criticism towards the conceptualisation that maximises fixability, and if I had to choose, I'd prefer something far more ambiguous.

We'd admit that we don't know how possible it is for someone to accomplish their personal goals and that one should just seek to improve as they can. By conceptualising issues in ways that don't necessarily provide a simple conclusion, the subsequent ambiguity would allow for flexibility. We could feel that it was possible for someone to have poor outcomes without forcing them to take responsibility for it, but we could still encourage a belief that improvements were possible.

If an overemphasis on fixability produces feelings of frustration, incompetence, impotence, inadequacy, and despair, then this remedy is to the point. — Leontiskos

I think the issues you're talking about are more closely related to nihilism than individualism. But I won't say too much about it, since it'll be too confusing to have parallel discussions, and we won't be able to give either the attention they deserve. I'll just say that I do agree patience is important when dealing with one's personal outcomes, and that impatience compounds many of the issues I've described in the OP.

The contexts are so different that I would read the same words differently based on whether I thought the context was personal outcomes, societal-level outcomes or both. — Judaka

Sorry, I can see why that would be deeply confusing. :blush: My words are often intended to be applicable to multiple different contexts or layers, but this is not apparent to someone who is not familiar with me.

Looking for that which is attainable is itself a bias, and this topic requires us to choose between competing narratives, that can't be separated simply into right and wrong. — Judaka

Before I read your reply I wrote a post to try to explain why I think the fixable-unfixable antinomy starts us off on the wrong foot. Although some of it may no longer be applicable, I will attach it at the bottom of this post for reference because I think it is still helpful.

To be honest, this is a rabbit hole within the thread that I am somewhat wary of. There may be deep disagreements about the genus of discourse and the legitimacy of certain contraries. But the short summation of the attached post is this: I don’t think ‘conceptualization in terms of unfixableness’ is a competing narrative, because I don’t think it is choice-worthy. We need to find a competing narrative that is choice-worthy if we are to talk about a balance between two narratives.

From the perspective of self-help, conceptualization in terms of unfixableness does seem to be wrong, for the purpose of self-help is to find actionable ways to improve oneself. What we need is an alternative which is not inherently wrong, and which has an intrinsic appeal. (Note, too, that a bias with respect to self-help will be qualitatively different than a bias with respect to a speculative science, for self-help is a practical science. More on this below.)

A focus on actionable factors wouldn't cause feelings of inadequacy within the appropriate context of "doing", only emphasising the importance of these factors would do that. — Judaka

This is a worthwhile distinction, but in your defense an exclusive or near-exclusive focus on actionable factors will automatically emphasize the importance of these factors. That is how I was reading the OP’s language of ‘focus’, and I think it is an important issue to consider.

While there's nothing wrong with a bias on what is attainable within the context of action, there is something wrong with it within the context of conceptualisation. To think of fixable factors as being largely determinate of outcomes due to one's biases or as a conscious choice is what creates feelings of inadequacy and many of the other issues I described in the OP. — Judaka

I would say that we leverage different conceptualizations for different ends, and here there are two ends in question. The first end is speculative; it is the desire to understand the causal factors of outcomes. In this case the dispassionate scientist is analyzing a personal outcome and determining which causal factors contributed to it. The second end is practical; it is the desire to shape someone’s life in an optimal way. In this case the psychological counselor is attempting to show someone how they can act in order to improve their situation.

A subtle “metabasis eis allo genos” occurs when these ends and conceptualizations get mixed unreflectively. The speculative scientist’s conceptualization will not be a proper fit for the psychologist, and the psychologist’s conceptualization will not be a proper fit for the speculative scientist. They are doing two different things, and their conceptualization needs to reflect the thing they are doing. Ideally they should not borrow conceptualizations from foreign fields.

Looking for that which is attainable is itself a bias... — Judaka

Returning to this recurring claim, I would say that it is a bias for the speculative scientist but not for the psychologist. Biases are not absolute. They are relative to one's end.

I have a lot of criticism towards the conceptualisation that maximises fixability, and if I had to choose, I'd prefer something far more ambiguous. — Judaka

If your thread is about self-help, then the conceptualization will do more than maximize fixability, it will presuppose that the domain of inquiry is limited to fixable issues. The psychological counselor (and the person interested in self-help) is not laboring under the impression that most all personal problems are fixable. They are intentionally and consciously focusing on those factors that they believe to be fixable, because their end (or goal) demands this focus.

We'd admit that we don't know how possible it is for someone to accomplish their personal goals and that one should just seek to improve as they can. — Judaka

This seems reasonable. It seems like a broad approach to the problem that occurs when someone mistakes unfixable problems for fixable problems. The other approach would be to correct the analysis so that this mistake does not occur, or occurs less often.

I think the issues you're talking about are more closely related to nihilism than individualism. But I won't say too much about it... — Judaka

Let me say just two things. First, your OP seems to involve the idea that there is an important interrelation between societal expectations and one’s self-assessment of their own personal life, and that these societal expectations with regard to fixableness are part of the problem. So it’s hard to altogether isolate the discussion from societal realities and the societal expectation that we should focus on fixability and self-improvement.

Second, the reason I like that proverb is because it provides a concrete way forward. It is very abstract to claim that we should alter our conceptual scheme. It seems to me that one of the most reliable ways that conceptual schemes are changed is by partaking in a new set of concrete acts. Planting trees for future generations (and other such actions) really will alter one’s conceptual scheme, and it will be altered even if one does not comprehend why or how or that it is being altered.

Edit: Perhaps an overarching point is that the average person, who indiscriminately mixes together the roles of the speculative scientist and the psychological counselor, needs to remind themselves that even when their focus is deeply enmeshed in self-help, they must still be cognitive of the fact that not all personal problems are within their control to change. There are many factors which are out of their control.

---

Here is the attached post:

Let me adopt a more critical approach to try to show why the OP could come across as unwieldy. The groundwork of the OP feels something like this dialogue that one could have with themselves:

• Me: It feels like a lot of problems flow from our strong focus on fixability.
• Myself: Well, what is the opposite of fixability?
• Me: Unfixability?
• Myself: Yes, unfixability. So we need to mix in more unfixability to find the right balance, just like you would mix water into a solution that is too salty.
• Me: That makes sense.

In general there is nothing wrong with this method, but it is important to find the right opposite or contrary. In this case I would say that unfixability is not the contrary, for fixability and unfixability do not belong to the same genus vis-à-vis self-help. They seem like contraries because one is the etymological negation of the other, but with respect to the topic of self-help they are not contraries.

If we are trying to find a balance between two extremes in the context of self-help, both extremes need to possess an intrinsic goodness and an intrinsic allure for the person seeking self-help, such that they might be tempted to overindulge in either one. But this is not the case for “unfixable.” Pathology aside, there is no intrinsic allure in the notion of unfixableness, for all it means is that there is a problem that will never be solved. A psychological counselor would never give the advice, “You are thinking of yourself too much in terms of fixability. Instead, try to think of yourself as unfixable.”

So in my opinion the OP is confusing because it leads us into these false contraries and leads us off on the wrong foot, trying to balance conceptualization in terms of the fixable with conceptualization in terms of the unfixable. My suggestion is that the contraries which need to be balanced are a focus on improvement and a focus on adequacy. These are contraries in a material sense, but they also fulfill the criterion of intrinsic goodness and allure, and are therefore contraries with respect to self-help. A psychological counselor might plausibly give the advice, “You are thinking of yourself too much in terms of improvement. Instead, try to think of yourself as adequate, as ‘good enough.’” Adding a greater emphasis on adequacy really will help relieve an obsession with improvement, just as water reduces the potency of a solution that is too salty.

If ‘improvement’ does not sufficiently capture the idea of the OP, then we would still need a better contrary for ‘fixable’, with sound rationale for why that contrary is worth pursuing on its own merit. ...Perhaps the balance is found by simply counterweighting the various other causal factors which are not in our control.

(Note that my first post contains an error where ‘unfixable’ is conflated with ‘uncontrollable’. I was trying to adhere to the language of the OP and I ended up fudging the logic. Unfixableness is not a proper motivation for self-help.)

My words are often intended to be applicable to multiple different contexts or layers, but this is not apparent to someone who is not familiar with me. — Leontiskos

Philosophy is generally high-level and one does need their words to be applicable in multiple contexts as a result, so I do appreciate that. If I am aware that another is referring to a broad range of contexts, I can try to avoid making assumptions, but that will make everything said more generic, and less meaningful, so if I think I can interpret what's said through the lens of a context, then I will.

This is a worthwhile distinction, but in your defense an exclusive or near-exclusive focus on actionable factors will automatically emphasize the importance of these factors. That is how I was reading the OP’s language of ‘focus’, and I think it is an important issue to consider. — Leontiskos

:up:

Returning to this recurring claim, I would say that it is a bias for the speculative scientist but not for the psychologist. Biases are not absolute. They are relative to one's end. — Leontiskos

I agree. Biases are necessary for thought, one shifts through and selects information as befits their purpose. One's purpose and context will be important in helping one to determine which biases are appropriate and which aren't. However, we can't treat these two contexts you've set up, of the speculative scientist and the psychologist as being entirely separate, especially in terms of conceptualising the issue.

To begin with, different contexts conceptualising differently often serve as competing narratives, not mutually inclusive of one another. For example, if one utilises biases of actionability or fixability to conceptualise the causes of poverty through the lens of self-help. One may address topics such as spending habits, investing, budgeting, procuring additional sources of income, and so on. While not definitively mutually exclusive with a view of poverty that emphasises economic and social factors, these two views often conflict with each other.

If the conceptualisation was aimed at producing a "How to improve outcomes in X", then how much of one's outcome in X is determined by a failure in the identified areas for possible improvement?

Also, with regard to the factors identified for possible improvement, in this action-orientated conceptualisation, how achievable are they, and what kind of level of success can they produce?

Even if one would present their conceptualisation as restricted to the context of self-help, the answers there have unavoidable consequences elsewhere. If individual factors reliably predict success, and anyone can accomplish this success with effort, then that will have implications on an explanation of the issue as largely systemic, environmental or genetic, etc.

If in the example of poverty, let's say there's a guy named Bill, who could clearly improve in actionable areas, such as his spending habits or budgeting. If our self-help conceptualisation would emphasise the power of proper spending habits and budgeting, to the extent that improving in these areas could drastically improve his situation, I'm not sure you can logically deny all of the negative implications this might have. Though it may depend on how they've been articulated, and nuance is important here.

The self-help conceptualisation isn't just a convenient fiction, it's asserting a truth, that Bill's circumstances could be resolved if he tried. If the source of the problem is systemic, and Bill isn't at fault, then why are his outcomes completely within his control? If believing that fixing one's inability to manage their money properly would produce such a substantial change, then isn't that issue largely responsible for creating the problem in the first place? Even if it wasn't, an adult should've known better, and Bill's failure to fix this problem up until now would make him responsible for it.

One who subscribes to the self-help narrative will interpret the issue through the lens of that narrative and is within their rights to use what it asserts is true to complement their understanding. Unless the self-help narrative is acknowledged as fiction, which, it isn't. If the psychologist makes promises about what can be accomplished to motivate you, nothing about the context tells you that your should think your psychologist is lying or telling you half-truths.

I'm not saying there is no nuance possible to avoid or lessen the above, but since striking a balance on fixability is the topic we're discussing, I'd want you to explicitly outline how you'd approach the issue. Do you agree that we can't just do whatever we want within a self-help context, and not expect it to spill over into other contexts? And do you agree how we conceptualise within the context of self-help will influence the impact of this spillover?

If it was possible to just have no spillover, then there'd be no need for my OP, so I reject the idea of it.

I'd also argue that a psychologist - or oneself, shouldn't just focus on what's actionable. Psychology has a lot to do with the impact of thinking about and conceptualising problems. While it's not good to tell someone everything is unfixable and there's nothing they can do to improve their situation. It is important to emphasise the importance of factors outside of one's control to relieve stress, improve self-image, help build realistic expectations and so on.

My suggestion is that the contraries which need to be balanced are a focus on improvement and a focus on adequacy — Leontiskos

I misunderstood your second part the first time I read it. I can understand what you're trying to say, and while I do have some other ends I'm concerned with, I am happy to focus on these two outcomes and agree they are important. Fixability is just a factor that influences them, and we don't actually care about fixability beyond its role in influencing other factors, I agree with that.

If I am aware that another is referring to a broad range of contexts, I can try to avoid making assumptions, but that will make everything said more generic, and less meaningful, so if I think I can interpret what's said through the lens of a context, then I will. — Judaka

That sounds good to me. I will probably ask for a clarification in the future. It's just that I don't always like to bog down complex threads with clarificatory questions.

However, we can't treat these two contexts you've set up, of the speculative scientist and the psychologist as being entirely separate, especially in terms of conceptualising the issue. — Judaka

That's true, and I tried to acknowledge this in an "Edit:" above. But I'm still not convinced that we can talk about "conceptualizing the issue." It seems to me that there is more than one issue at stake, and that the social scientist is speaking to a different issue than the psychological counselor. If you think it can be construed as a single issue, then what would that issue be? At the very least it must encompass self-help, a causal analysis of outcomes in general, and the interest of the social sciences in systemic factors.

I'm not saying there is no nuance possible to avoid or lessen the above, but since striking a balance on fixability is the topic we're discussing, I'd want you to explicitly outline how you'd approach the issue. Do you agree that we can't just do whatever we want within a self-help context, and not expect it to spill over into other contexts? And do you agree how we conceptualise within the context of self-help will influence the impact of this spillover? — Judaka

As a preliminary point, context spillover is the central reason why I think that proverb is important, and the proverb only makes sense once it is understood that actions spill over into other contexts.

Secondly, here and in your title you idiosyncratically speak about a balance between one thing, fixability. As I understand it, a balance must always be struck between two or more things. Throughout and in different ways I have been trying to raise the question of what that second thing is and how it should be incentivized. Or if there are several, then what those several things are.

Generally speaking I think spillover can and should be managed, because it is often a result of loose thinking and erroneous inferences. As an example, when a sociologist speaks on a systemic issue, we should not automatically draw inferences with respect to other disciplines. We should acknowledge their statements within the sphere of expertise and allow broad leeway for our epistemic ignorance in the inferential space between disciplines.

One might want to say that the expert should constantly be guarding against false inferences. For example, maybe the psychological counselor who helped Bill needs to constantly remind him that although they have conceptualized his life in terms of actionable factors, not all factors are actionable. There is some truth to this, but I also think it needs to be taken for granted. A psychological counselor shouldn't need to always offer reminders that they are a psychologist and not a social scientist, especially in a world with so many specialized disciplines. But maybe we need improved education in order to take this for granted.

(The same thing applies when someone is working out these issues on their own, apart from experts and authorities. They need to recognize that there are different issues/ends at stake, and try to keep them separate.)

If the source of the problem is systemic, and Bill isn't at fault, then why are his outcomes completely within his control? If believing that fixing one's inability to manage their money properly would produce such a substantial change, then isn't that issue largely responsible for creating the problem in the first place? Even if it wasn't, an adult should've known better, and Bill's failure to fix this problem up until now would make him responsible for it. — Judaka

I disagree with all three sentences here. I don't think systemic factors and personal responsibility are mutually exclusive, although the popular mind and political parties very often reinforce the idea that they are. I don't believe that having the ability to fix a problem implies that one is responsible for creating the problem in the first place. And I don't think failing to fix a fixable problem necessarily means that one is at fault for the persistence of the problem.

With respect to that third point/sentence, ignorance is a very complicated reality, and it is not always easy to understand when ignorance implies culpability and when it does not. "Bill should've known better" is a philosophically contentious claim which may or may not be true in any given circumstance.

Granted, there can be ways in which the spillover is more unwieldy. To take one example: the social sciences foster a deterministic paradigm while the self-help disciplines foster a free will paradigm, and—compatibilism aside—this creates a tension between them. This isn't only a matter of spillover. It is also a matter of intentional inferential claims. The social scientist might actually affirm determinism and they might actually assert that personal responsibility does not exist. But mediating this tension is difficult because it is a difficult philosophical problem.

I'd also argue that a psychologist - or oneself, shouldn't just focus on what's actionable. Psychology has a lot to do with the impact of thinking about and conceptualising problems. While it's not good to tell someone everything is unfixable and there's nothing they can do to improve their situation. It is important to emphasise the importance of factors outside of one's control to relieve stress, improve self-image, help build realistic expectations and so on. — Judaka

That's right, but this would be leveraging a focus on non-actionable factors as an actionable intervention. It is the idea that some problems are fixed simply by remembering that not all problems are fixable. So in this case the unfixable does pertain to self-help.

I can understand what you're trying to say, and while I do have some other ends I'm concerned with, I am happy to focus on these two outcomes and agree they are important. Fixability is just a factor that influences them, and we don't actually care about fixability beyond its role in influencing other factors, I agree with that. — Judaka

Okay, great. I think that section lost some of its applicability once I realized that you were also interested in the non-self-help paradigm of social science and systemic issues, because it limits itself to the self-help paradigm. Still, I'm glad it was useful.

At the end of the day it may be that that monstrous question of "the truth" is unavoidable. :grin:

If you think it can be construed as a single issue, then what would that issue be? — Leontiskos

I think that conceptualisation of the issue itself should acknowledge a broad array of factors influencing the outcomes, without providing a conclusion. Self-help should focus on one's personal circumstances while remaining mindful that their circumstances belong to themselves alone. Fixable issues are testable, you can see their impact, but unfixable factors can only be understood in a broader sense. The context of self-help can focus on what's actionable, while using actionable factors to conceptualise relevant issues can be viewed as an overreach, wishful thinking, that can't be substantiated.

The trouble with conceptualisations prioritising fixable factors is that the available methods are inexhaustible and there exists no mechanism to prompt reconsideration of the importance of unfixable factors. It manifests as one's endless self-assurance about failure proving only flaws in method, mindset or some other fixable thing.

What mechanism could there be? If the fixable factors are predominately determinative of the outcome, whether as cause, solution or both, then some combination of changes should resolve the issue. Failing to find that solution just proves the need for review and adjustment, it will never prove anything else. The only way it ends is when the relevant parties just give up, but even then, giving up doesn't mean acknowledging the fixable factors as less important, it just means it wasn't feasible to continue trying.

Do you have a mechanism for knowing when fixable factors can be considered less important than previously thought? How many times does a person need to fail, or in what manner, that we could conclude the problem wasn't with the particular method, but in the assessment of fixability?

A psychological counselor shouldn't need to always offer reminders that they are a psychologist and not a social scientist, especially in a world with so many specialized disciplines. — Leontiskos

Acknowledging the existence of unfixable factors doesn't require expertise in them, and they belong to no single field of research, some are part of the field of psychology. Nurture & nature influences can be construed as unfixable or beyond one's control too.

As I understand it, a balance must always be struck between two or more things. — Leontiskos

Well, it is a spectrum, but someone could reject the OP's title and tell me that there should be no balance and that we should only emphasise fixable factors. I conceive of the status quo of self-help as emphasising fixable factors, so, to me, striking a balance would be accomplished by promising less from fixable factors and making a greater effort to acknowledge unfixable factors. Especially the former, self-help should aim to improve personal outcomes, not relentlessly promise to be the difference between failure and success.

Though, I hadn't intended psychologists to be the focus of my critique, as getting help from a psychologist is well, not representative of self-help, since it entails outside, professional help. I'd still be willing to include actions done by the individual to help themselves that were recommended by a psychologist, but the actual sessions themselves? And the psychologist being the focus of our critique? That's outside my comfort zone because I imagine psychologists do acknowledge unfixable factors, likely more than almost anyone else, but I also don't have much experience in the area.

I disagree with all three sentences here. — Leontiskos

I don't believe that having the ability to fix a problem implies that one is responsible for creating the problem in the first place — Leontiskos

If Bill improves his spending habits and has an improvement in results, what is that he would be fixing? His literal spending habits, right? Most fixable factors are like that, they're within our control for a reason. One is rarely solving an external problem here, they're changing how they do things. It can make sense to conceive of a change as a solution, I know not everything is the same as the spending habits example. However, you are generally changing yourself, how you do things, how you think about things and so on.

Disagreeing with the statements is fine, but are you claiming that as statements, these sentences would be unreasonable? Even Bill himself, had he improved his spending habits and had it resolved his financial woes, would probably agree with all three. If one replaces a bad way of doing something, a bad mentality, or a bad habit and changes it and the problem goes away, surely that implies that the cause was in what was changed. It doesn't prove it, but it certainly implies it, right? Depends on the particulars, I guess.

It's not about whether you or I agree anyway, we both know plenty of people would and do agree with them. I believe it is partly due to the emphasis on fixable factors in the conceptualisation of the problem. It's not about whether it's true that "Bill should've known better", it's about whether it's true that many will think it, and we already know the answer.

If you agree that others would conclude that way and that emphasising unfixable factors is a solution to counter this, then is there something else that you'd argue could fulfil that role instead? We emphasised fixable solutions as important and then they sometimes deliver the promised results. Even when they don't, it doesn't prove that they couldn't, if implemented correctly. Free will is an important concept here, glad you brought it up, because a lot of the time, fixable factors aren't quite so black-and-white. If Bill has impaired impulse control, which explains his poor spending habits, that complicates matters.

We can ask people to be kind for kindness' sake, but when pairing free will + emphasising fixable factors, there is little reason not to blame people for their outcomes, right?

That's right, but this would be leveraging a focus on non-actionable factors as an actionable intervention. — Leontiskos

It can be that but I am also advocating for it to be part of the overall conceptualisation of the issue, so I don't think it's just a reaction to need. Anyway, we agree on this point, there needs to be some acknowledgement of what is and isn't within our control.

At the end of the day it may be that that monstrous question of "the truth" is unavoidable — Leontiskos

:fear:

If you think it can be construed as a single issue, then what would that issue be? — Leontiskos

I think that conceptualisation of the issue itself should acknowledge a broad array of factors influencing the outcomes, without providing a conclusion. — Judaka

But you are still presupposing that there is a single issue (you are still speaking of "the issue"). I am asking what that single issue is supposed to be. Again, I am concerned that there is more than one issue at stake, and that multiple issues are being conflated. What is the purpose of the conceptualization you speak of? It seems like the purpose you have in mind is that of the speculative scientist, who is trying to understand which causal factors influence an outcome. This is an issue, but it is not the issue of self-help. That end and that conceptualization will be different from the end and conceptualization that the psychological counselor uses. The end of the psychologist is to make a useful intervention, and their conceptualization will reflect this. Depending on the issue at hand we will utilize different conceptualizations.

Though, I hadn't intended psychologists to be the focus of my critique, as getting help from a psychologist is well, not representative of self-help, since it entails outside, professional help. — Judaka

As I see it, the type of the psychologist is a personification of the self-help paradigm. It is useful because it is professional, for it allows us to look at the paradigm itself instead of accidental features. That is, it helps preclude strawmen. Psychological counseling is the strongest form of self-help, and the people who are most serious about helping themselves will be reading psychological material or will submit themselves to professional counseling. If we want to talk about self-help, then I assume we want to talk about the strongest form of self-help, lest we strawman the notion of self-help.

Do you have a mechanism for knowing when fixable factors can be considered less important than previously thought? How many times does a person need to fail, or in what manner, that we could conclude the problem wasn't with the particular method, but in the assessment of fixability? — Judaka

I think the mechanism would be success or failure as they relate to effort. This mechanism is then catered to different contexts, such as particular approaches or interventions. This is a problem in the psychological literature as well, and it is why some of the newer schools are keen to set explicit and measurable goals.

So if someone is working by themselves to try to fix a problem using a set of X interventions, and they fail, then they are justified in saying, "I am unable to fix this problem using X interventions." The justification for this claim will vary with the level of effort. If they receive outside help, then instead of "I am" it would be "we are." If they exhaust all of the interventions of a particular school, such as Freudian psychology, then it would be, "I am unable to fix this problem using a Freudian approach." If all conceivable and available interventions have failed, then there is justification for the claim that the problem is unfixable tout court.

Note that these sorts of practical conclusions can never be reached with scientific exactitude or logical necessity. We must be content with the level of justification that pertains to practical conclusions, and this level of justification is not insubstantial.

I conceive of the status quo of self-help as emphasising fixable factors, so, to me, striking a balance would be accomplished by promising less from fixable factors and making a greater effort to acknowledge unfixable factors. Especially the former, self-help should aim to improve personal outcomes, not relentlessly promise to be the difference between failure and success. — Judaka

You seem to be saying that we should focus on improving rather than fixing, because most problems are improvable but not fixable. Ergo, we need to take a more pessimistic approach. I am not opposed to this idea.

That's outside my comfort zone because I imagine psychologists do acknowledge unfixable factors, likely more than almost anyone else... — Judaka

I also think psychologists acknowledge unfixable factors. If this is right, then the criticism only pertains to low quality forms of self-help. I would agree that low quality forms of self-help, which routinely mistake the unfixable for the fixable, are problematic.

But this also raises the question of whether the thread is exclusively about self-help, or whether it is also about the societal conditions and the societal thinking which gives rise to excessive optimism.

If Bill improves his spending habits and has an improvement in results, what is that he would be fixing? His literal spending habits, right? — Judaka

Sorry, I should have been more explicit about the error. That Bill fixed his spending habits does not imply that he is responsible for creating the problem in the first place. The problem may be due to bad parenting, for example.

Disagreeing with the statements is fine, but are you claiming that as statements, these sentences would be unreasonable? — Judaka

I disagree that they are logically sound, which is to say that the conclusion does not follow of necessity. "Bill fixed his spending habits, therefore he was responsible for creating the bad spending habits in the first place." The conclusion does not follow from the premises. It is possible that Bill created the bad spending habits, but it is not necessary. It may be that his parents engendered his bad spending habits in a way that was out of his control.

It's not about whether it's true that "Bill should've known better", it's about whether it's true that many will think it, and we already know the answer. — Judaka

This is the question of whether we ought to combat false societal beliefs with education and argument, or with societal conditioning. I imagine that both are necessary, but I prefer the former. I would prefer explaining why the conclusion does not follow and helping others to understand this.

If you agree that others would conclude that way and that emphasising unfixable factors is a solution to counter this, then is there something else that you'd argue could fulfil that role instead? — Judaka

I see the "emphasizing" as a form of conditioning, and I think the alternative is argument and education. A form of conditioning I favor can be seen in the section of my first post which is about the Greek proverb.

We can ask people to be kind for kindness' sake, but when pairing free will + emphasising fixable factors, there is little reason not to blame people for their outcomes, right? — Judaka

Sure, I would agree with that, but I think the sort of emphasis you are talking about is an irrational overemphasis. That is, these people falsely believe that unfixable things are fixable.

I am asking what that single issue is supposed to be. Again, I am concerned that there is more than one issue at stake, and that multiple issues are being conflated. — Leontiskos

Fair enough. I had imagined when writing this thread, an impersonalised, generic approach to self-help, distinctly different from the personalised advice a psychologist would offer. An explanation of an issue that impacts millions of people, such as the obesity epidemic, in terms of fixable factors, would talk about what is within an individual's ability to control. Their choices, actions, habits, decisions and so on. It would understand the obesity epidemic as being a product of bad choices and solvable by smart choices.

A narrative or conceptualisation will function as an argument, providing premises and a conclusion. The distinction between improvement and solving a problem is an important one. If self-help limited itself to simply improving personal outcomes, rather than identifying the determinative factors as fixable ones. If it didn't promise to solve problems, but just improve outcomes. Then it could focus on fixable factors without emphasising their importance beyond what is compatible with acknowledging the importance of unfixable factors.

I'm happy to acknowledge that a conceptualisation of an issue within the context of self-help can exist separately from a conceptualisation that a social scientist would create. But not if the self-help narrative identifies causes & suggests solutions on a large scale, in a way that clearly competes with the explanations social scientists or other experts might give.

It's also a question of when the self-help conceptualisation is to be applied. If every time someone brings up an issue or a personal outcome, it automatically established a context of self-help, then this will have a social conditioning effect. When can a person talk about a personal outcome outside of the context of self-help? Is that even possible?

I appreciate your questions though, I'm not sure if I had a thorough answer to them before thinking about it. I am starting to see some nuances, like in the "improve vs solve" distinction, "personal vs impersonal" approaches and understanding when the self-help context is active vs inactive, that could provide a framework for resolving my concerns.

If we want to talk about self-help, then I assume we want to talk about the strongest form of self-help, lest we strawman the notion of self-help. — Leontiskos

I'm not sure what it would mean if my criticism wasn't valid when applied to the strongest forms of self-help, but it might not be. I had mostly imagined things like a book, a video, a lecture, an anonymous discussion such as on a forum, and things like that. A psychologist who writes a book might be valid for critique, but probably not a psychologist who knows their patient, and provides solutions specific to them. I didn't actually realise that the personal vs impersonal distinction mattered when I wrote the OP, it was only through this discussion that I noticed. I may not have realised otherwise, so thanks for that.

f all conceivable and available interventions have failed, then there is justification for the claim that the problem is unfixable tout court. — Leontiskos

Exhausting all conceivable and available solutions seems impossible to me. That being said, I am not familiar with the new psychological approach you refer to, so I can't comment on whether it is possible there or not. When it comes to "effort", we get back into free will, and issues like self-control. For example, there are many solutions to obesity that are guaranteed to work, if they're actually implemented. Of course, the entire problem is in the implementation, and this is how free will miss the point. We can say the diet would've worked if it were followed, and failed only because the effort was insufficient.

Will, method, mindset, habits, routine, medication, self-control, meditation, mindfulness, environment, social circumstances, mental health, physical health, the list of areas we can address just goes on and on. It's inexhaustible.

Sorry, I should have been more explicit about the error. That Bill fixed his spending habits does not imply that he is responsible for creating the problem in the first place. The problem may be due to bad parenting, for example. — Leontiskos

Bill's spending habits represent his choices, made with intent, aware of the consequences, and represent his actions. If they are the problem, but not his fault? Under what conditions would it be his fault then? What's special about bad parenting, that one couldn't argue any nature or nurture influence couldn't be used to resolve a person of responsibility for anything they did?

One is responsible for themselves just generally, and their property, and for fulfilling their obligations. If the cause has been a problem that was within Bill's power to fix, even if it wasn't of his making, that can often be enough to put the blame on him.

Your interpretation here, well, I'm not going to insist it's wrong, that's not necessary, but it's a complete deviation from normative responsibility. Even beyond responsibility, just what is "Bill"? If not his actions, intent, decision-making and so on. Can his habits even be differentiated from him, that we could blame them without involving him at all? Well, I'm not sure how much these questions matter to the overall discussion, you can be the judge, but I don't understand your thinking here.

This is the question of whether we ought to combat false societal beliefs with education and argument, or with societal conditioning. — Leontiskos

I'm not sure it's a false belief, it's an interpretation, there is no real right or wrong here. Whether it's better to blame Bill or not for his spending habits... I feel overwhelmed here. This question goes far beyond the scope of the topic. Our answer would have ramifications across a diverse range of contexts.

My OP contends that by emphasising fixable factors, we're necessarily going to put the blame on people for their problems. I still believe that is true, but are you disagreeing with that? Is your solution to rethink the way blame and responsibility function on a conceptual level?

Fair enough. I had imagined when writing this thread, an impersonalised, generic approach to self-help, distinctly different from the personalised advice a psychologist would offer. An explanation of an issue that impacts millions of people, such as the obesity epidemic, in terms of fixable factors, would talk about what is within an individual's ability to control. Their choices, actions, habits, decisions and so on. It would understand the obesity epidemic as being a product of bad choices and solvable by smart choices. — Judaka

Okay, that's helpful. So we are engaged in something like epidemiology? That makes sense. As I was thinking about it I concluded that a very crucial aspect of this discussion is philosophical anthropology, which we could pragmatically define as the study of what humans beings are and what humans beings are capable of. I think it is the various different forms of philosophical anthropology that different interlocutors bring to the table which produce such divergent views on these issues.

The distinction between improvement and solving a problem is an important one. If self-help limited itself to simply improving personal outcomes, rather than identifying the determinative factors as fixable ones. If it didn't promise to solve problems, but just improve outcomes. Then it could focus on fixable factors without emphasising their importance beyond what is compatible with acknowledging the importance of unfixable factors. — Judaka

I only recently realized that the thing you are contrasting with 'fixable' is 'improvable', and that is a more subtle distinction. But let's be careful with language, because these are the sort of ambiguities that have thrown me off the trail. You should have said, "Then it could focus on improvable factors..." The focus is now on improving rather than fixing.

Earlier I thought you were saying, "We think these things are fixable, but they are unfixable because they are systemic, and therefore we should not try to address them at all." Instead you seem to be saying, "We think these things are fixable, but in fact they are only improvable. So we should not expect anything beyond improvement."

It's also a question of when the self-help conceptualisation is to be applied. If every time someone brings up an issue or a personal outcome, it automatically established a context of self-help, then this will have a social conditioning effect. When can a person talk about a personal outcome outside of the context of self-help? Is that even possible? — Judaka

I suppose it would depend a great deal on their audience and their intent in sharing. But these paradigms can certainly overlap. For example, a social scientist could sit in on AA meetings to gather data for their field even though all of the participants are participating in self-help interventions.

I appreciate your questions though, I'm not sure if I had a thorough answer to them before thinking about it. I am starting to see some nuances, like... — Judaka

Okay, good. I am glad that the conversation is bearing some fruit. I am now beginning to see a lot of nuances pop up as well, especially with the improve vs. fix distinction.

I didn't actually realise that the personal vs impersonal distinction mattered when I wrote the OP... — Judaka

It's an interesting distinction. How important it is, I am not sure. When I speak about the 'psychological counselor' I don't mean to exclude self-counseling. There are some people with remarkable self-knowledge, and many of them are also well-read in the psychological literature. Some of the great psychologists and psychiatrists of history have been able to address many of their own problems in an "impersonal" way. If that counts as self-help, then self-help need not be intrinsically unattuned to the difference between what is fixable and what is only improvable. But it seems to me that you are thinking in terms of aggregation, where societal trends will reflect the average person's capacity and "self-help" will therefore be amateurish. That's not a problem; the term surely has that connotation.

Exhausting all conceivable and available solutions seems impossible to me. — Judaka

Suppose someone is born into a wealthy family and contracts a rare disease at a young age. They are especially averse to the disease and this motivates an extremely high level of effort. They spend their entire life and their considerable wealth trying to cure the disease, they fail to do so, and they die at an old age. Now suppose there are 100 others who go through the same process. This does not offer proof—and there may be no such thing as strict proof of incurable diseases in medicine—but it is the best sort of evidence possible for the claim that the disease is incurable. If the 100th person, on their deathbed, concluded that the disease is incurable, it would be folly to tell them that they have insufficient evidence for that claim. We could tighten this up a bit if we qualified the claim to be, "Incurable at this point in history."

What's special about bad parenting, that one couldn't argue any nature or nurture influence couldn't be used to resolve a person of responsibility for anything they did? — Judaka

One can argue anything they like, and many people do argue whatever they like, but the question is whether the conclusion follows of necessity.

I think the easier case is the addict. Suppose someone inherits a cocaine addiction from their mother. Now suppose that he cures his addiction later in his 40s, and stops using cocaine. The claim was that, "If he fixes his problem, then he was responsible for it in the first place." But in this case the claim is false, is it not? He was not responsible for his cocaine addiction. (Feel free to modify the claim in question if you like. We have been talking about the simplified version that I glossed.)

If the cause has been a problem that was within Bill's power to fix, even if it wasn't of his making, that can often be enough to put the blame on him. — Judaka

I agree that it "can often be enough," but this is different from the claim that he is necessarily culpable. This is important because if we do not have sufficient knowledge then we are not justified in drawing the conclusion that Bill is at fault. If we do have that knowledge then of course we can draw the conclusion.

Can his habits even be differentiated from him, that we could blame them without involving him at all? Well, I'm not sure how much these questions matter to the overall discussion, you can be the judge, but I don't understand your thinking here. — Judaka

The grounding moral principle is that we are responsible for the things that we do, but we are not responsible for the things that are done to us. This of course gets tricky because often the things that we do flow from the things that were done to us, and the things that are done to us flow from the things that we have done. So responsibility can be altered in either direction, but always with respect to that grounding principle. Habits are one of the tricky areas because they involve what we do (actions) and what is done to us (passions). Thus the culpability which relates to a habit varies depending on how the habit was formed.

Cocaine addiction is an example of a habit. If the addict's own free actions caused the addiction, then he is responsible for the problem. If the addict's mother passed on the addiction to him in the womb, then he is not responsible for the problem. ...Of course he might culpably exacerbate the problem and become partially responsible, but I am trying to keep it simple lest we get lost in distinctions.

But yes, we are a bit off topic. If you and I disagreed on moral responsibility then it might be necessary to work this out, but I suspect that we do not disagree.

I'm not sure it's a false belief, it's an interpretation, there is no real right or wrong here. Whether it's better to blame Bill or not for his spending habits... I feel overwhelmed here. This question goes far beyond the scope of the topic. Our answer would have ramifications across a diverse range of contexts. — Judaka

Okay, sure. I shouldn't have used the word 'false' (although I myself do believe that it is false). My point was that if it is suggested that a focus or emphasis on fixability conditions a society towards a culture of blame, then one option is to introduce a different focus or emphasis which also conditions the society, but in the opposite direction. But there is a second option if the blame is a consequence of irrationality, and the second option is argument and education.

My OP contends that by emphasising fixable factors, we're necessarily going to put the blame on people for their problems. I still believe that is true, but are you disagreeing with that? Is your solution to rethink the way blame and responsibility function on a conceptual level? — Judaka

Let me try to disambiguate a little bit:

1. Emphasizing fixable factors will cause us to blame people for their problems.
2. Emphasizing fixable factors will cause us to unjustly blame people for their problems.
3. Overemphasizing fixable factors will cause us to unjustly blame people for their problems.

My answers would be:

1. Yes
2. Perhaps, but not necessarily
3. Yes

But I would answer the exact same way if we replace "fixable" with "improvable" in each of the three propositions. For me the bad (unjust) outcome will always flow from the faulty analysis or "conceptualization." Unjust blame occurs because there is an overemphasis on fixable factors, or because unfixable factors are being mistaken for fixable factors (which amounts to the same thing). There are also other ways unjust blame can manifest, such as when citizens have faulty ideas about moral responsibility. (To be clear, I am not claiming, nor do I suspect, that you yourself have these faulty ideas. I tend to think that we are talking past one another on that topic.)

Anyway, I'll hand it back over to you since I may be raising more questions than I am answering. :grimace:

Okay, that's helpful. So we are engaged in something like epidemiology? That makes sense. As I was thinking about it I concluded that a very crucial aspect of this discussion is philosophical anthropology, which we could pragmatically define as the study of what humans beings are and what humans beings are capable of. I think it is the various different forms of philosophical anthropology that different interlocutors bring to the table which produce such divergent views on these issues. — Leontiskos

Yeah, great summary, I hadn't heard of the term philosophical anthropology, but it describes well our focus.

I only recently realized that the thing you are contrasting with 'fixable' is 'improvable', and that is a more subtle distinction. — Leontiskos

I had meant to contrast improving personal outcomes, from drastically improving or solving them. Basically, the significance of the effect promised by self-help solutions.

What I mean by "unfixable factors" is that any solution would fall outside of what can reasonably be construed as self-help. Replace unfixable with unimprovable if you prefer, I agree that it is clearer.

Okay, good. I am glad that the conversation is bearing some fruit. I am now beginning to see a lot of nuances pop up as well, especially with the improve vs. fix distinction. — Leontiskos

I probably shouldn't have made that contrast, I generally don't like picking words apart like this, I should've said improve vs drastically improve instead, but no matter.

It's an interesting distinction. — Leontiskos

Perhaps I screwed up here as well, but I'm not sure whether the nuance different I wanted to convey got across or not. By impersonal, I meant, advice produced for mass consumption, or non-personalised. "How to Improve At X - for anyone" vs "How to improve at X - personal plan for Bill". Your response indicates you may have interpreted in some other way.

We could tighten this up a bit if we qualified the claim to be, "Incurable at this point in history." — Leontiskos

Sure, but I don't accept that a disease compares the complexity of a human being and personal outcomes.

Within personal outcomes, there are people who do well and people who don't, so from the get-go, we know success is possible, but not what factors are needed to produce it. Those who display success vary across so many factors, thus we know it's not a simple answer. Each case is unique, with a different set of circumstances for each person, an incomprehensible web of interplay between factors.

I have contended that there is no mechanism for knowing our limitations for influencing our personal outcomes. No matter what is done, there will always be something else that can be done. Do you disagree with this?

We will always assume improvement is possible, if not drastic improvement, and that means that if a person really had the desire to change, they could. Consider it a hyperbole, there are undoubtedly exceptions. It's not your views that produce this problem, and I already know you are unimpressed with the views that produce this problem, so I won't expand on it.

I agree that it "can often be enough," but this is different from the claim that he is necessarily culpable. This is important because if we do not have sufficient knowledge then we are not justified in drawing the conclusion that Bill is at fault. If we do have that knowledge then of course we can draw the conclusion. — Leontiskos

Sure, good old Bill is off the hook - for now, but my claim was of a general nature, I agree that the nuances matter. I'd say the general sentiment is innocent until proven guilty, but one can argue against that, as I have little doubt you would.

Unjust blame occurs because there is an overemphasis on fixable factors, or because unfixable factors are being mistaken for fixable factors (which amounts to the same thing). — Leontiskos

I agree, and also that education can help, though the other major problem is free will, which I will make a thread about soon. I believe certain conceptualisations of free will are a primary source of the issue, I imagine that you would agree.

(To be clear, I am not claiming, nor do I suspect, that you yourself have these faulty ideas. I tend to think that we are talking past one another on that topic.) — Leontiskos

I understand you are just clarifying it, but I'll counter-clarify that I never had any such misconceptions.

Overall, we seem to mostly agree on the issues. When I was considering making a thread about this topic, I had a few lenses to choose from, and one was personal responsibility and blame. I do recognise these two concepts as being relevant to this issue, but I view them as symptoms more than anything else. If a person is in control of their personal outcomes, then they should take responsibility for them, and they should take the blame for them. I view this as a logical connection, it seems you don't agree. Nonetheless, you agree with the relationship of the emphasis on fixable factors and blame, and that's good enough for me.

As I said previously, the "truth" is not a feasible option, and I'm not sure to what extent the view of personal responsibility, deserve and blame, paired with an emphasis on fixable factors and free will, can be called irrational. I can offer an alternative to it, but my claim of superiority comes from a belief that it produces better outcomes, paired with some disagreements about free will.

You've agreed that an emphasis on these unfixable factors helps produce these ways of thinking, and you've said education can be a solution. Although it was earlier on in this discussion, where you undoubtedly had a different understanding of what we were talking about, you said the self-help context should exclude unfixable factors. Do you stand by that?

Is it accurate to say that you think we should be able to proceed as normal, and just educate people to get rid of their irrational interpretations?

I had meant to contrast improving personal outcomes, from drastically improving or solving them. — Judaka

Sure, that makes sense.

What I mean by "unfixable factors" is that any solution would fall outside of what can reasonably be construed as self-help. — Judaka

So the idea is that an "unfixable problem" might have a solution, but that solution would fall outside of the competence of self-help.

By impersonal, I meant, advice produced for mass consumption, or non-personalised. "How to Improve At X - for anyone" vs "How to improve at X - personal plan for Bill". — Judaka

Okay, so when you speak about self-help you are referring to the sort of resources which are not tailored to a particular person's unique situation, right? That's a helpful clarification.

All of this helps get at the question of why we would focus on unfixability. We would focus on it because by it we are led to understand that some of the solutions to problems labeled "fixable" are not accessible to those who are using self-help methods, where "self-help methods" are those methods that utilize resources produced for mass consumption. Therefore the people who are facing these problems should aim for improvement rather than a complete fix, at least if they are limited to self-help methods.

I have contended that there is no mechanism for knowing our limitations for influencing our personal outcomes. No matter what is done, there will always be something else that can be done. Do you disagree with this? — Judaka

I still think my disease example serves as an analogy. The 100th victim who is dying in old age on his deathbed has not, in a logical or empirical sense, exhausted all possible interventions. But he can still have good justification for his claim. Strictly speaking, I agree that failure never proves that the task was impossible, but I also think that claims and estimations can be made with respect to what is impossible, and they can be made with reasonable justification.

But where are you going with this? If I agreed, where would you take us? I assume you are going to say that claims of fixability are unfalsifiable, and that optimists who focus on the fixable can never be deterred because we can never prove that something is unfixable.

We will always assume improvement is possible... — Judaka

I see this as a cultural assumption which is therefore contingent. In general I think the assumption is much less common in non-democratic societies and historical eras.

I believe certain conceptualisations of free will are a primary source of the issue, I imagine that you would agree. — Judaka

Yes, I think so.

If a person is in control of their personal outcomes, then they should take responsibility for them, and they should take the blame for them. I view this as a logical connection, it seems you don't agree. — Judaka

Oh, I would agree with that. Wherever responsibility exists, blame can exist. That's part of what "responsibility" means. In my example of the person who had a cocaine addiction from infancy there is neither blame nor responsibility. In that case the person is not in control of the personal outcome of cocaine addiction.

As I said previously, the "truth" is not a feasible option... — Judaka

I think this is probably where we disagree. I would say that even if truth is only something that we approximate, it is still crucially important. I think that seeking "good outcomes" goes hand in hand with truth, in part because it implies that some outcomes are good and others are bad. I also think that true "conceptualizations" correlate to good outcomes.

Although it was earlier on in this discussion, where you undoubtedly had a different understanding of what we were talking about, you said the self-help context should exclude unfixable factors. Do you stand by that? — Judaka

Interesting question. To be honest, I am still fuzzy on what you mean by 'unfixable'. Apparently by 'fixable' you mean that a full solution is possible, such that we do not need to be satisfied with mere improvement. Logically speaking I want to think that 'unfixable' does not exclude improvability, but I don't know for certain how you view the relation between unfixability and improvability. Can what is unfixable be improved, or not?

Is it accurate to say that you think we should be able to proceed as normal, and just educate people to get rid of their irrational interpretations? — Judaka

No, and thanks for asking for clarification. Here is what I said earlier:

This is the question of whether we ought to combat false societal beliefs with education and argument, or with societal conditioning. I imagine that both are necessary, but I prefer the former. — Leontiskos

I stand by that. Both are necessary but I would give greater weight to education. The same would apply in general to the way that we address problematic phenomena in a society. Both would usually be necessary.

But where are you going with this? If I agreed, where would you take us? I assume you are going to say that unfixability is unfalsifiable, and that optimists who focus on the fixable can never be deterred because we can never prove that something is unfixable. — Leontiskos

Right, my claim is that there is no mechanism for switching gears, an understanding that drastic improvement is possible will never be invalidated. There will always be more things to try, or more ways to try the same things. Nuance changes in the method or removing problems that stood in the way, such as one's mindset, habits or level of effort.

I think this is probably where we disagree. I would say that even if truth is only something that we approximate, it is still crucially important. — Leontiskos

I agree that the truth is crucially important, but even the most ardent effort to understand it will still leave much ambiguity. When dealing with uncertainty, ideas of risk/reward come into play, and we must decide what options work best. The risks as a culture of judging ourselves as less capable than we are in influencing our personal outcomes, and of risk that judging ourselves as more capable than we are. That is what we must juggle.

Nonetheless, I understand that nuance matters, and I'm asking a question too broad to answer properly.

I understand you are still having difficulty understanding the idea of "unfixable factors" or "unfixable problems". Fair enough. I've seen enough to know that I'll need to rethink how I refer to these concepts. I don't want to try to salvage them.

We have very similar views, and where we seem to disagree, possibly, we would agree if the nuances were laid bare.

I generally think of this topic more in terms of concepts such as free will, responsibility, blame, deserve and other such ideas that we've touched on and agreed are highly relevant.

As well as the question of the degree of influence a person's actions have over their personal outcomes, in a variety of contexts. It's that question that I tried to express using "fixability", you would've understood me better had I omitted the use of it.

In my example of the person who had a cocaine addiction from infancy there is neither blame nor responsibility. — Leontiskos

True, though this is a case where a person had no control over the outcome at all. It becomes murkier when someone did ostensibly have a way to avoid the consequences of their problem or when they're actively contributing to it. You've let Bill off the hook where his parents taught him bad spending habits, whereas many wouldn't. Differences in opinion on what diminishes the responsibility one has for their actions and to what extent, that's where the conflict takes place.

That's an oversimplification, to be sure, the problem's a lot deeper than that. I generally dislike the concept of blame, it's an aspect of morality that I dislike.

Although I've yet to bring it up, the concept of "deserve" is an even greater issue than responsibility and blame, though they're all related. I can't go into depth about them without making a new thread really, and I imagine I'd just be preaching to the choir anyhow.

I still think my disease example serves as an analogy. — Leontiskos

Hmm, but a disease is so straightforward, it ignores the complexity of human psychology and emotions, of our environments and the multitude of factors that go into making us who we are. Each person is a unique case with unique circumstances. Different personalities and capabilities, and a variety of other issues may be related to the underlying problem.

In the context of self-help, Bill is the antidote, and his effectiveness is dependent upon many factors, including his will, and free will, or just will is of tremendous issue in this topic. There are so many reasons why an attempted change might not work out, far beyond what would be true of a potential antidote.

With a disease, truth is very achievable and should be our goal, and since you can see personal outcomes as comparable, I guess that explains our difference in opinion there. There is growing clarity though, and perhaps one day, they will be more comparable, but I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime.

I stand by that. Both are necessary but I would give greater weight to education. The same would apply in general to the way that we address problematic phenomena in a society. Both would usually be necessary. — Leontiskos

Fair enough. I agree with it as a long-term strategy, though I'd argue the views we're disparaging are pretty much mainstream. Conquering ideas of free will, and educating people about systemic and genetic factors, is not purely a philosophical task. Science will do the heavy lifting, I have faith in it happening, eventually.

Thanks for participating in this discussion with me. I'm impressed by your willingness to engage with such a complicated, original topic, despite it being presented suboptimally. I appreciate your effort to ensure we weren't just talking past each other.

Although I'm happy to continue discussing something if you feel it's worthwhile, and I'll let you reply to what I've said regardless, I'm pretty comfortable with where we're at.

We're aligned in aiming to disrupt the flow of capability -> responsibility -> blame and other related ideas. If I assumed truth was an option, and there was no need for something else, then I'd orientate myself around it. To some extent it is, and to the extent it wasn't, I'm sure you'd advocate for the same nuances I wanted, and you've agreed to many of them already.

As for self-help, well, sometimes people are just selling hope because hope sells. Probably, as you've suggested, the issue is the quality of the self-help. High-quality self-help wouldn't produce the problems I've described. Education + changing attitudes + increasing awareness of the complexity of factors & will, changing how we perceive responsibility and blame, etc, I can agree with all of this.