Author: JVK

Wizard: That will be ten thousand dollars.

Bob: Ten thousand! But we haven’t even had a session yet!

Wizard: I’m afraid there are no exceptions to my policy. I find that patients are not motivated to learn from my sessions unless there is money on the line. They have to have some skin in the game. I used to do things differently, but I had some bad experiences and now this is the way I operate.

Bob: Okay, but ten thousand is a lot of money. How do I know that our sessions will be useful?

Wizard: Don’t worry, I offer a money back guarantee. If you have good reason to be dissatisfied with my services, all of your money will be refunded.

Bob: What counts as a “good” reason?

Wizard: If my advice is so useless that you choose not to take it, then you may have your money back.

Bob: All I have to do to get the money back is … not take your advice?

Wizard: Yes. But I would highly recommend taking it. It will be very useful advice.

Bob: Okay. I have heard that you are very good, and I have some extremely important concerns that no other wizard has been able to help me with.

Wizard: I do enjoy that reputation. Now, please write me a check and then sign this contract.

Bob: All right, here you go.

Wizard: So tell me what you would like to talk about.

Bob: It’s about my marriage.

Wizard: Of course; I am primarily a marriage wizard — that is my specialty.

Bob: I want to emphasize that I am not like your other clients.

Wizard: Aren’t you? In what way are you different?

Bob: I am generally more enlightened than most people. I am not caught up in selfish, material things. So I’m guessing that my concern is not any of the common concerns you encounter.

Wizard: What do you think are the common concerns?

Bob: I’ve heard that the most common concern in a marriage is financial issues. I’m not worried about that.

Wizard: Most of my clients are not concerned about financial issues.

Bob: … really? Well, I’m not concerned about sex.

Wizard: Most of my clients aren’t.

Bob: Dominance?

Wizard: Nope.

Bob: Or a fair distribution of household chores.

Wizard: If only they were more concerned about that. Why don’t you tell me what you are concerned about?

Bob: What I want is something pure and refined, something that ordinary people would not understand. I’ve been to many marriage wizards, and none of them really understood me.

Wizard: Tell me what it is?

Bob: I want spiritual fulfillment.

Wizard: Ding ding ding ding ding! That’s right, that’s what most of my clients want. So you’re fairly typical.

Bob: [disappointed]: I’m pretty sure that most people have selfish, material motivations. I am different.

Wizard: May I ask what kind of spiritual fulfillment you want?

Bob: I’m sorry?

Wizard: Can you describe the spirituality you want?

Bob: I guess … I want my relationship to lead to personal growth and enlightenment. I want my spouse and I to build on one another’s emotional and spiritual strengths in order to transcend material concerns and become all that we can be.

Wizard: Ah, so you want level one spiritual fulfillment.

Bob: There are levels of spiritual fulfillment? And I’m at level one?

Wizard: Weeeell I wouldn’t say you’re at level one. You aspire to level one. And that’s not a small thing; ambition is important.

Bob: How can it be that I’m not even at level one? I’ve been experiencing an ongoing spiritual quest for the past four years.

Wizard: Then you have clearly been associating with the wrong wizards. I will be able to catapult you to level two in just the first few weeks — assuming you pay close attention and follow my advice.

Bob: What level are you, may I ask?

Wizard: It’s not something we should talk about.

Bob: If you’re going to make these big claims about spiritual things, you have to back up your words.

Wizard: I’m at level infinity.

Bob: Level infinity!

Wizard: I told you we shouldn’t talk about it.

Bob: What kind of egotistical nonsense is this?

Wizard: It’s not egotistical if it’s true. I’m sorry if I made a misstep in our conversation.

Bob: Okay, it’s okay. Moving on …

Wizard: What have your previous wizards told you? It’s very important that I know exactly what you have heard in the past.

Bob: My first wizard said I should memorize some love songs and serenade Alice. This was supposed to improve our marriage. She said it was very important that I pick love songs that are scientifically proven to be effective.

Wizard: Are there love songs that have been proven effective?

Bob: Oh yes. My first wizard said there’s a whole academic literature about it.

Wizard: How … do they test that the marriage is improved?

Bob: They do it with statistics.

Wizard: Huh. What did they find?

Bob: The most effective thing is humor, actually.

Wizard: Humor is good. What kind of humorous love songs do you like?

Bob: I don’t like them, but I have to memorize them because they are effective. Weird Al has some highly rated ones, like:

[solemnly] “You make me wanna write a dozen book reports / Then pack myself in styrofoam. / Sometimes you make me want to build a model of the Eiffel Tower out of Belgian waffles.”

That line is particularly funny, I am told.

Wizard: Okay, well, you tried this, and what happened?

Bob: It didn’t work. I still felt unfulfilled.

Wizard: So you came to me.

Bob: No, I came to my second wizard. My second wizard said that it all comes down to Maslow’s hierarchy. That means that people are motivated by practical needs: food, water, shelter, and so forth. Beyond that — security, belonging, and esteem. People like me, who value transcendent things, are at the top of the hierarchy, but we are very rare.

Wizard: How do you use Maslow’s hierarchy to improve your marriage?

Bob: Well you have to provide more food, water, and shelter to your spouse. It seemed like water was the easiest one, so I made Alice drink more water. I started by surreptitiously pouring extra water in her glass at dinner. She didn’t notice, and she drank it. It wasn’t enough though. To get beyond that, I had to get her on board with it. So I told her that research shows you have to drink twelve glasses of water every day.

Wizard: Did she believe you?

Bob: No. So then I told her that I was going to drink twelve glasses every day, for my health, and I needed her support, so she would have to do it with me. And she agreed to it! We had a “one month challenge.”

Wizard: What Maslow need is that?

Bob: I’m sorry?

Wizard: What Maslow need motivated Alice to agree to help you?

Bob: Water. She needed the water. Unconsciously.

Wizard: Okay, and did it work?

Bob: No. I was still unfulfilled.

Wizard: So you came to me.

Bob: Yes. So I’m ready to hear your advice.

Wizard: Well you’ve come to the right place. I know exactly what you should do. If you follow my advice, you will surely find the spiritual satisfaction you seek. Your marriage will improve, and you will be better able to meet Alice’s Maslow needs. You will even have a better sense of humor.

Bob [eagerly]: What is your advice?

Wizard: Well first of all, do you feel like you got anything out of your first two wizards?

Bob: No, nothing.

Wizard: Nothing whatsoever?

Bob: Nothing whatsoever.

Wizard: See, you are right about that, but your problem is that after each wizard, you think that their theory of everything, what I call their “embedding,” is wrong, but that the next wizard has the secret to everything. Then you are dissatisfied that that wizard, too, doesn’t have the secret. And so on.

Bob: Yes, yes, all of this is true.

Wizard: So you have come to me, and you think I have the secret.

Bob: Don’t you?

Wizard: No! Of course I don’t have the secret. Your marriage is something you have to work out between you and Alice. That’s what I call “responsivity.”

Bob: How should I do that?

Wizard: I have no idea! But I do have one important piece of advice.

Bob: What’s that?

Wizard Don’t come to me for advice! I have nothing to offer. Except for this advice.

Bob: Except for what advice?

Wizard: The advice that you shouldn’t come to me.

Bob: I already came to you! Are you offering to refund my money?

Wizard: No, no, I would only refund your money if I had no advice. But I do have advice.

Bob: Which is?

Wizard: Don’t come to me a second time.

Bob: How will that help me satisfy Alice’s Maslow needs and give me a sense of humor?

Wizard: Well it will give you a sense of humor because you’ll be able to laugh at yourself. You’re taking everything so seriously. But once you see how ridiculous it was to visit me, you’ll be overcome with joyful mirth.

Bob: I see, and the Maslow needs?

Wizard: You’ll save the money that you would have paid on the second session. That’s a lot of money that could be used to buy food, water, and shelter.

Bob: Wait, was the $10,000 only for the first session?

Wizard: Yes, of course. Didn’t you read the contract? I am a highly sought after level infinity wizard. My clients include some of the world’s wealthiest billionaires. My services ain’t cheap.

Bob: That’s absurd! Outrageous! I have no words to express my indignation! I demand my money back!

Wizard: I would be happy to refund your money, as long as you meet the criterion.

Bob: What criterion?

Wizard: You have to not take my advice.

Bob: You gave me no advice!

Wizard: Not true, I advised you not to come to me a second time.

Bob: So in order to not follow your advice, I have to …

Wizard: Come to a second session.

Bob: How much is the second session?

Wizard: $12,000.

Bob: There’s no way I’m coming to a second session with you! You’re a monster! I’ve had it! I’m leaving immediately!

Wizard: See how efficient my instruction is! You are already committed to our treatment plan. Truly, I deserve my reputation as the world’s greatest and most enlightened marriage wizard. Thank you for coming, Bye now.

From: Alice
To: Bob
Time: 9:32 AM Monday
Subject: Control

Hi Bob,

I have some thoughts about our earlier conversation about control. I have been thinking about the ways in which people subtly control conversations instead of just relating to each other. Yes, some people would actually try to obtain compliance and agreement rather than seeking simple friendship!

I’m thinking particularly of Eve, of course. She always saw things in terms of her own frame — it was a way of controlling people. For instance, she always thinks people should answer her texts instantly, like within ten seconds or something. When we had an argument about the texts, she would have it all thought out — she had planned the whole discussion in advance. I think she would just sit and stew and mull things over, and by the time the fight happened she was prepared for anything I would say. She had to be the superior one who was “objective,” “wise,” and “right.” Underneath though, I think she just wanted to be in control — to get people to supply her with the immediate responses she needed. This was probably due to an insecurity on her part, although she never admitted that. In general, insecurity is the major cause of this kind of problem.

When people see things only in terms of their own frame, I call it “embedding.” By “embedding” I just mean an unhelpful pattern of thought, emotion, or conversation that someone gets stuck in. People think they know what is right and wrong, true and false, without realizing that their perspective is unhelpful and is leading to their own and others’ suffering. They leap to make assumptions, and they are motivated to make everything fit into their system.

Anyway, I guess Eve has a long ways to go. What do you think?

Write back soon,

Alice

From: Alice
To: Bob
Time: 10:30 AM Monday
Subject: Re: Control

While writing the previous e-mail, I was somewhat distracted by my upstairs neighbor, who was very loudly practicing the woofwarr. It’s such a beautiful sound when played well, and so awful when played poorly! At any rate, in light of this fact, I thought I would write back to clarify a few points that I did not make very clearly.

I am not claiming that Eve _consciously_ knows she is being controlling. It’s more that the human brain is a control machine. When the brain wants something, it will try to calculate what it needs to do in order to get what it wants — in the same way that a neural network (in the sense of artificial intelligence) will do that. The more Eve considers the situation, the more she rationalizes and constructs frameworks that get her what she wants. What do you think?

Write back soon!

Alice

From: Alice
To: Bob
Time: 11:45 AM Monday
Subject: Control

I think that for me to send a second e-mail after the first one was actually not very “responsive.” That is, it is not necessarily respectful of the conversation we are having. I should be waiting for your response. Communication is a two-way street, and it would be natural for you to be annoyed if I do not respect the turn-taking nature of our conversation. In fact, by bothering you again just one hour later, I was being a bit controlling instead of (as it should be with responsivity) just relating to you. Responsivity, then, refers to communicating in a way that values turn-taking, listening, authenticity, and perceptiveness. These are really just the conditions for communication to be constructive: I have to listen to and perceive your intent; I have to communicate my authentic intent to you; and we have to take turns communicating.

In any case, given that communication _is_ a two-way street, I expect you will write back soon.

Alice

From: Alice
To: Bob
Time: 1:10 PM Monday
Subject: Re: Control

I realized that my third e-mail was just the sort of “embedding” that Eve uses, where she overthinks things and tries to be “objective.” Your response (or lack thereof) was to be explained within my philosophical framework about responsivity. I was so insecure that I leapt to try to pin you down before you even wrote back. I tried to manage and orchestrate the whole conversation myself, rather than allowing you to have a role in it. That was why I sent the third e-mail. How controlling of me! Fortunately, I stopped after that. But by sending you the third e-mail, I acted as if what _I_ have to say is all that matters. I assumed that I understood what was going on without even hearing what you had to say. If only I had just waited for your response before blabbering about my opinions. Sometimes we act as though “constructive communication” is about ensuring that the other person adopts our cognitive framework, when really the most important thing is to establish a relationship of trust.

Write back soon?

Alice

From: Alice
To: Bob
Time: 2:50 PM Monday
Subject: Re: Control

I imagine by your lack of response that you are annoyed in some way. I understand completely. Say no more.

Bob: Don’t look now but … that creature is watching our every move.

Alice: I saw it too, I believe it’s a Great Eared Bandersnatch. It’s kind of sniffing with its … is that a nose?

Bob: It is a very strange creature. I’m not sure if that is a nose. Could be.

Alice: I don’t like the look of those enormous claws. I don’t suppose it could be a vegetarian creature?

Bob: Not a chance. Look at its teeth. I should say its fangs — it really has quite vicious fangs.

Alice: I’ve heard about these Bandersnatches. It’s actually their ears that you have to be careful about. The Great Eared Bandersnatch is known for tracking its prey by sound. Its ears are very sensitive. It can hear every word we are saying, even if we whisper. It even understands our language.

Bob: That means that the longer we talk, the more likely it will grab us and have us for lunch. So the optimal course of action would be to stop having this conversation.

Alice: We don’t have to stop talking altogether. The Great Eared Bandersnatch only attacks people who have embedded conversations.

Bob: What does that mean?

Alice: Embedding is just an unhelpful pattern of thought, emotion, or conversation that you get stuck in. It’s often a thought about “how things are” — but it might not be simply and straightforwardly false.

Bob: Can you give an example?

Alice: You know, like belonging to a cult that mistreats its members. Or having excessive feelings of guilt or anxiety. Or being overly arrogant. Or getting into a pointless argument. None of these things are necessarily “false.” They could be unhelpful because they are neurotic, obsessive, self-deluding, or overly analytical.

Bob: Belonging to a cult is not a thought or emotion.

Alice: Sure it is. Depending on the particular person, it could involve many emotions — loyalty, trust, spirituality, and so on.

Bob: Okay, but more importantly, your examples all involve vague qualifications. “Excessive” feelings of guilt or anxiety. “Overly” arrogant. “Mistreats” its members. “Pointless” argument. What, exactly, are you trying to say? And I’m not sure what you mean by “overly” analytical. Is it overly analytical to engineer bridges? You’re a mathematician. Mathematical analysis is used to build bridges that get cars over rivers.

Alice: No, Bandersnatches have no problem with building bridges.

Bob: What about the analysis that’s used to calculate how to build medical imaging devices?

Alice: No, that’s not overly analytical either.

Bob: Is it that science can be analytical but the humanities can never be analytical?

Alice: No, there’s plenty of successful analysis in the humanities. People will disagree as to which is good analysis and which is bad analysis. But to reject all analysis in the humanities, you’d have to reject all of: the Federalist Papers, the Communist Manifesto, the Second Sex, Plato’s Republic, and so on. Surely most people subscribe to at least one of these.

Bob: The Bandersnatch is licking its lips for some reason.

Alice: That probably means it’s hungry.

Bob: Personally, I think the humanities require just as much emotion as analysis.

Alice: Embedding can also come from being overly caught up in your emotions!

Bob: Then how, exactly, do you tell if you’re being overly analytical or just analytical?

Alice: That’s the sort of question that leads to overly analytical discussions. If there were some systematic analytical process for detecting embeddings, we could easily become trapped or stuck in that process. So the only way to tell is really by a kind of – I don’t know, a kind of gentle internal nudge or mystical intuition. It’s about a kind of feeling of being stuck. A sixth sense, if you will. Escaping embeddings is a matter of learning to listen to that sixth sense and go with it.

Bob: What does this “nudge” feel like, exactly?

Alice: So, imagine you overhear an embedded conversation in which people are stuck. What they’re saying sounds relevant and helpful to them; but to you it sounds kind of absurd or problematic in some way. You get a certain reflective feeling by listening to them – a feeling that you are not caught up in their conversation. You don’t have to analyze what they’re saying – you just intuit that it’s not helpful. Now take that reflective feeling and apply it to your own thoughts. You can let go of your own thoughts, reflect on them, and intuit whether they are helpful or not helpful. That’s the sixth sense.

Bob: It would help if I could listen to the kind of conversation you’re talking about. Then I could analyze it for myself and understand your point.

Alice: You wouldn’t need to analyze it. You would have an intuition that it wasn’t helpful. That’s the mystical intuition thing.

Bob: Well, I think I’m one of the most reflective people I know. In fact, I’m reflective enough to be skeptical about claims of mystical intuition. Even if mystical intuition is real, it just isn’t practical.

Alice: What do you mean?

Bob: We need to have an agreement on what is and isn’t “embedded.” Mystical intuition is no basis for discussion and agreement. Only analysis, logic, and reason can get us to that agreement. Without agreement, we can’t work together to avoid getting embedded.

Alice: Sometimes people can have the same intuition at the same time. They can even arrive at the shared intuition through discussion.

Bob: But in general, that doesn’t always happen.

Alice: Bob, don’t you see that by becoming overly obsessed about the general way to reason about embedded discussions, one risks having an embedded discussion?

Bob: That’s true, but unless people can discuss how to stop, I don’t see how they are going to stop. People have to talk about something in order to figure out how to do it.

Alice: You don’t think people will simply know how to stop?

Bob: People are often drawn to embedded discussions in a way that they can’t control.

Alice: I agree, it can be generally hard to stop. Why do you suppose that is?

Bob: Perhaps what’s required is some effort of will that most people lack.

Alice: Why do most people lack this willpower?

Bob: It could be helpful to consult the academic literature on this question.

Alice: Studies have shown that willpower is a limited cognitive resource. When you are on a diet, it’s hard to exercise too. You can use your willpower to diet or exercise, not both.

Bob: Ah, yes. The theory of “ego depletion.” That’s actually a popular misconception; there is no such thing as ego depletion.

Alice: It’s a misconception that willpower is limited?

Bob: Not exactly. It’s a misconception that willpower can be used up on one task, leading to a lack of willpower on another task.

Alice: It seems to me that we lack the willpower to end our own embedded conversations.

Bob: But with a sufficiently good theory of willpower, we could change that.

Alice: I don’t know. Do psychological theories actually help you think better? There is a phenomenon I might call “theoretical impracticality” whereby simply knowing about something doesn’t always help you succeed at that thing.

Bob: What we need is a practical way to tell which theories are practical and which are impractical.

Alice: Ssh. The Great Eared Bandersnatch is looking over in our direction.

Bob: Does that mean it is going to pounce?

Alice: I don’t know, but Bandersnatches will pounce if people don’t stop having their embedded conversations. That is a generally important and relevant fact about Bandersnatches; we should keep it in mind.

Bob: The more we learn about Bandersnatches, the better we can prepare ourselves.

Alice: Maybe if we had a really good theory of what it means to stop having an embedded conversation.

Bob: Well stopping means … cessation, finality, or termination.

Alice: Those are synonyms of the word “stopping,” yes.

Bob: Are you dissatisfied with my list of synonyms?

Alice: I don’t see how the synonyms are getting us any closer to actual cessation. I call this unfortunate situation “synonymism” — it means that we think we are understanding something, but really we are just listing a bunch of synonyms. Real understanding, useful understanding, doesn’t come from just knowing the word for something.

Bob: I happen to like synonyms.

Alice: Like them or not, they aren’t very useful.

Bob: Oh, so everything should be analyzed in terms of its utility? Are you a utilitarian?

Alice: Well, naturally things have to be analyzed in terms of their utility —when one has any kind of goal. Our goal is to avoid provoking the Great Eared Bandersnatch, so we need useful knowledge about Bandersnatch-avoidance. In general, one always has a goal, and so one should always consider utility.

Bob: That doesn’t mean we have to explicitly talk about utility. We could be talking about, you know, art, aesthetics, or values.

Alice: Moral values?

Bob: Moral values, among others.

Alice: I should point out that the Bandersnatch seems to be creeping closer. It’s almost imperceptible, but each time I look at it, it’s a bit nearer.

Bob: Why is it moving so slowly?

Alice: I think Bandersnatches move slowly in order to give their prey a false sense of security.

Bob: Anyway … you had asked about moral values. But what about spiritual values?

Alice: How will spiritual values help us with the dilemma at hand?

Bob: You shouldn’t be thinking in terms of this dilemma at all. Only by not thinking about the dilemma can you hope to resolve the dilemma. The Bandersnatch will attack if we continue to talk in analytical terms, but if we talk in aesthetic terms it may not attack. Aesthetic conversations are generally less embedded than analytic ones.

Alice: You say that, but the sentence you just said is still analytical. You are analyzing whether analysis or aesthetics is more embedded. My word for this situation is “analysis irony.” Analysis irony means that one talks about the drawbacks of analysis but does so in an analytical way.

Bob: I’m not the one analyzing what you said. You are the one analyzing what I said. So you are the one engaging in “analysis irony.” In fact, it is a kind of meta-analysis-irony, because it is analysis irony about analysis irony.

Alice: No, now you are analyzing what I said.

Bob: Yes, but you started it.

Alice: Why does it matter who started it?

Bob: It matters because you are attacking me, and I am defending myself. You are engaged in an “analysis irony attack.” Analysis irony attacks are all too common nowadays.

Alice: Defensiveness is a symptom of embedded discussion.

Bob: Why is that?

Alice: Because in order to defend themselves, people generally come up with theories about “how things really are” that they use to justify themselves. They invent theories that explain how they are innocent, while their attackers are being quite unjust. I call this situation a “moral reversal.”

Bob: Well in this case I’m just telling it like it is, because I am justified.

Alice: Bob, you might want to look behind you, because …

Bob: In fact, I have had quite enough of your accusations. There is a whole set of people who are hypocrites about analysis. They think they can analyze others, but others cannot analyze them. I call these people “one way analyzers,” because aaaaiiiiii! (CHOMP).

Alice: Oh, no the Bandersnatch! I told you that you were being too defensive. In fact, you were being meta-defensive, which is a kind of defensiveness that is about ack! (CHOMP)

(Not) The End.