# Making Implied Standards Explicit

Standards are everywhere:

"That movie was kind of bad"

"You're so pretty!"

"I'm so disappointed in you"

By exploring standards, I've been able to notice them in my life. By noticing them, I've less of a need to "measure up".

By investigating the many areas standards appear, I hope to share this freedom with you.

Beauty and Costumes
-------------------

For Halloween and Cosplay, one of the many standards that is applied is how close you resemble your character. If that is the agreed standard, then we can say things like "Alice's costume is _better_ than Bob's" because Alice's resembles her character more than Bob's.

  

![](https://i.imgur.com/NvlCXAL.jpg)

Similarly, when people talk about someone being "beautiful", "handsome", "ugly", "[butterface"](https://www.google.com/search?q=butterface&oq=butterface&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.1845j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8), they have some sort of vague standard in their mind that they're comparing that person to, very much like comparing the two people above to Batman.

There's the stereotypical highschool relationship where the girl thinks she's ugly, and the guy takes that as a _very bad thing that must be fixed_ and tries very hard to convince her that she's actually beautiful. They're just using two different standards, and if you agree on the standard, you agree on the label.

Can _you_ see _yourself_ as beautiful?

(Can you see yourself as ugly?)

Agreeing on Standards
---------------------

Should I define \[word\] in this way or that? Completely depends on which standard you're grading by. Historical precedence, first use, clear communication, norm enforcing, there are many to choose from!; however, it's important to _agree on a standard_ first if you hope to have a fruitful discussion with someone. Same goes for most arguments.

My brother said a TV show was good and I said it's wasn't that good. I gave specific reasons to back up my reasoning, but it wasn't working! Eventually I realized that we were using two different standards (different definitions of "good"). I was rating it based off it's intended funniness, exploration of a theme, fan service, and [intelligent characters](https://yudkowsky.tumblr.com/writing). He was rating it based off of it being entertaining or not! If we had just agreed on his standard to begin with, then the discussion would've been over at the beginning!

\[But of course my standard was better because it scores well on the meta-standard of appearing sophisticated (which scores well on which meta-meta-standard? Which scores well on ...)\]

Popular Standards
-----------------

Good grades, smart, funny, lots of money, strong/ flexible/ healthy, symmetrical face beautiful, prestigious awards, knowing multiple languages, visited other countries.

These are standards that are agreed upon to be praiseworthy. By that I mean, you should have prior experiences showing someone being praised for scoring high in that standard. Praise can take the form of verbal praise, comments, karma, retweets, likes/hearts, awards, etc.

Some people _expect_ to be praised due to their achievements on these standards and become disappointed or mad when someone doesn't give them what's rightfully theirs.

Some people feel _more valuable_ than certain people because they score well on standards that their in-group agrees are good standards. I mean, I work/donate money to directly save lives and reduce x-risk! Of course my life is more valuable than the average Joe. (This isn't a jab at anyone, it's something I've actually thought and never shared)

Roles
-----

A role is just a set of standards. To put on a role is to submit yourself to those sub-standards.

If someone is playing the role of Batman, it's really just the sub-standards of "Is he dressed right?", "Is the voice right?", "Are the type of words right?", etc. Someone could score well on one of them, but not so well on the others.

You can [Babble and Prune](https://www.lesswrong.com/s/pC6DYFLPMTCbEwH8W), but you must put on the role of a Babbler and be judged by that standard, and then put on the role of the Pruner and be judged by that very different standard.

A good student _must_ make all A's, get into a good highschool/college/program, score well on AP tests/ACT/SAT/TOIEC, spend a lot of time studying.

A funny person/comedian _must_ make people laugh.

A good parent _must_ have children who are safe and happy and lead "successful" lives ("success" being a different standard)

Sticky Standards
----------------

Sticky standards are hard to drop and let go of. You can't help but be emotionally affected when you score good or bad in these standards! Thoughts keep popping up in your head unprompted and it's impossible not think more about them!

Winning arguments, or _being viewed as right_, is a common example. Thinking about an argument you had with someone and what you should've said and HOW CAN THEY NOT SEE I'M RIGHT!? _Let me just send one more text/comment._

Standards that are NOT sticky, you would view as not important, not a big deal. Like losing a board game or not having the most stamps (though of course, there are people who care very much about losing board games and having the most stamps!)

It's good to know which standards and roles are sticky to you. Which ones have control of your emotions and thought patterns (especially when those emotions and thoughts aren't useful for achieving your goals)?

Did you notice I used the word "good" and that also implies a standard I'm imposing on you?

Trying to Succeed at Every Standard Presented to You
----------------------------------------------------

When learning about [Kegan's stages of adult development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_developmental_framework#Stages_of_adult_development), I wanted to be at stage 5! In school, I wanted all A's! When talking to someone, I want them to be happy and interested in me, and definitely not mad or disappointed! Of course I want a high IQ and ACT/SAT score! Of course I want to 100% this video game! Oh, you think _you've_ had a bad week?, let me tell you about mine! Ya I want all the \[karma/retweets/likes/other social media rankings\].

Beware of trying to [succeed at every standard](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KeXgCayxbfjAHG8x9/wanting-to-succeed-on-every-metric-presented) presented to you. Noticing when it happens is most of the battle.

Valence and Vedana
------------------

Probably the stickiest standard is [valence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_(psychology)) (for psychology) or [vedana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedan%C4%81) (for buddhism). It's the positive, neutral, or negative label applied to all of your sensory experiences. The Buddhist framework claims that the conditions for suffering (another standard!) is wanting to keep positive valenced sensations or avoid negative valenced ones.

\[A further claim is that this "wanting" is a specific millisecond level mental motion that you can notice with a high enough level of concentration, see Nick Cammarata's [twitter](https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/1566589893136064512?s=20)\]

Why is This Important?
======================

(Important on what metric?)

Beyond being useful as a useful descriptor, and for identifying one cause of miscommunications, metrics in the wild may or may not align with your values. By default, we have cached reactions to failing/succeeding certain metrics, which may have gone unexamined for a long time. An antidote is to become hyper-aware of standards for a short period of time (say 2 weeks), re-examining the metrics on a case-by-case basis and asking if they truly align with your values.

I bet some will be easily resolved by just noticing the dissonance between what you want and the implied metric. Others, though, are sticky, so they stay.

A common failure mode here is to hate/shame/disown the parts of you that do care about the metric (say, winning a board game). If so, there are techniques to handle this like [internal double crux](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mQmx4kQQtHeBip9ZC/internal-double-crux), and the power of self-love.