# Distilling Replacing Guilt

*The following is a summary of what I took from* [*Replacing Guilt*](https://www.lesswrong.com/s/pFatcKW3JJhTSxqAF) *by Nate Soares. I recently listened to the* [*audiobook*](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pAvvEX9GxZyRyd7Se/announcing-the-replacing-guilt-audiobook) *read by Gianluca Truda. I found it excellent, with lots of valuable advice for enhancing my motivation system even though I wouldn't say I suffer from chronic guilt. I took notes while listening, and as a personal exercise to help me process the advice, I attempted to capture the 'big picture' (as I see it) in the form of this summary. A friend suggested LessWrong might appreciate the result. I hope this might draw newer readers to the original sequence.*

There is a stereotype of rationalists as calculationists who are oblivious or insensitive to emotion. That is a fallacy, as you will learn [soon into a rationalist education](https://www.lesswrong.com/s/5g5TkQTe9rmPS5vvM/p/SqF8cHjJv43mvJJzx). Feelings can certainly be true, and they can certainly be useful.

*Replacing Guilt* is an example of a genre you could call “effective affectism.” This is the genre wherein one carefully analyses the origins, mechanics, or practical consequences of a particular component of the human emotion system, and on these grounds decides whether the emotion should be endorsed or dismissed. Don’t worry—if dismissing a particular emotion would have bad consequences, then a sufficiently skilled analysis would uncover that and take it into account, and so on to similar objections.

In this case, Soares argues that chronic guilt is not instrumentally useful, in that it fails to lead us to produce better outcomes according to our own value systems. From a consequentialist perspective, therefore, guilt is best dismissed or avoided. Allow me to attempt a rendition of the argument.

The first step of the argument is to show how various kinds of guilt can be refined into other forms, or dismissed outright, as follows.

*   If guilt arises with a vague sense that you are not doing anything in particular (so-called ‘listless guilt’), then this guilt is misplaced. There must be some specific objective that you are not considering, and failing to meet that objective is the true source of the guilt. The prescription is to listen carefully to the guilt, rather than suffer it. Search within yourself to identify this true source, which will fall into one of the other categories.
*   If guilt arises from failing to meet a specific objective, but that objective is not about optimising long-term values and preferences we have chosen ourselves (such as pursuing an externally-imposed objective like getting a high grade in whatever course we happen to be taking), then it can be dismissed. Soares assumes a kind of existentialist axiology under which such self-affirmed objectives are the only objectives that have any value. In failing to meet any other kind of objective, nothing of value has been lost, and there is nothing to feel guilty for.
*   If guilt arises from failing to meet a specific, intrinsically-derived objective, but the objective is based on a superficial analysis of your options (such as assuming that there is something you ‘should’ do, for example because it sounds stereotypically virtuous, without having fully cashed out the decision in terms of the full costs and benefits of each option), then it *might* be dismissable. Soares notes that the statement that you ‘should’ do something can only be the output of a decision-making procedure, and should not be used as an input. You can only know after you complete the analysis in terms of your deeper values whether you’re dealing with a real obligation, versus an illusion to which you owe nothing.
*   If guilt arises from failing to meet a specific, intrinsically-derived, fully cashed-out objective, but the objective is physically or psychologically impossible to satisfy (such as, failing to immediately discover the cure for some disease, or marshalling unbounded amounts of willpower), then it is best also dismissed. If the objective is clearly impossible (immediately curing a disease) this is uncontroversial. The point is that sometimes people mistakenly believe that their objectives are possible, when they are not (marshalling unbounded amounts of willpower). Remember, we are not (yet) gods—have some compassion for the messy, fragile monkey.
*   Similarly, if guilt arises from failing to meet a specific, intrinsically-derived, fully cashed-out objective in a situation where you face a forced situation that is bad in *absolute* terms (such as failing to save two lives when there are only enough resources to save one; or seeing tragedy in the world), but you already took the actions that were the best available in *relative* terms (such as saving the cheaper life, all else equal, to preserve more resources for next time; or already doing your best to prevent other tragedies), this guilt can be dismissed. It’s worth agonising a *little* over difficult choices, since it prompts you to double check that you haven’t missed some action that is actually better than your best bad option, but if you’ve identified all of the options, all you can do is choose the best in relative terms.
*   Relatedly, if guilt arises from failing to meet a specific, intrinsically-derived, fully cashed-out, realistic objective, but the failure is based on a rational trade-off (such as sacrificing one source of value for more of another, or losing a gamble you stand by having taken given the prior odds), it can also be dismissed. These cases describe outcomes that appear bad in isolation but arise naturally over the course of pursuing good *patterns of behaviour.* The latter is the right level to make decisions on in the pursuit of long-term goals.

Any remaining guilt we feel must be in what I’ll call ‘final form:’ guilt that arises from failing to meet a specific, intrinsically-derived, fully cashed-out, realistic, process-level objective. This guilt takes more work to dismiss, because it can actually serve consequentialist purposes. Namely, it can deter you from failing these kinds of objectives in the first place, and it offers negative feedback when you do fail, so that you can learn from mistakes. These are both useful, according to your values!

However, note that, like other deterrents, guilt is most effective if you don’t need to actually deploy it. *Actually suffering* the guilt is extremely costly in terms of both the raw negative experience (which is probably inherently bad) and also the productivity and psychological down-spirals it can ignite (which prevent you from effectively pursuing your other objectives). Moreover, if you experience guilt *chronically,* it’s clearly not functioning as a proper deterrent, nor as a learning signal!

The second step of the argument is to construct an alternative, less costly and more effective system we can use to motivate us to achieve our objectives, sparing us the need to suffer even this final form of guilt. The system has the following pillars.

*   To replace the function of guilt as a feedback signal, Soares recommends a mindset of an impartial scientist and a patient optimiser. Since we’re only dealing with guilt in final form, it’s about patterns of behaviour. When you notice that you have made a mistake at the level of your patterns of behaviour—possibly because you are struck by a wave of guilt—adopt a curious mindset. You can gather empirical evidence about your psychology, or suggest and refine hypotheses for how you could change your patterns. Then, rather than suffering guilt, dismiss it and skip straight to the part when you update your patterns to reduce the prevalence of that kind of mistake. In this case, as soon as the guilt has served its function as a notification, it can be dismissed.
    
    Note, this self-optimisation should not be taken as its own totalising obligation! The ‘stream of self-improvement’ is itself yet another stream to be deliberately balanced against all of the other streams. It takes time to fix your glitches, and sometimes it is rational to defer fixing small problems indefinitely. In that case, you still don’t need to feel guilt about your mistakes, since they are the result of a rational trade-off.
    
*   What about replacing the function of guilt as a deterrent, compelling you to take positive action towards achieving your objectives? Well, since the hypothetical guilt is in final form, the objectives in question would be about pursuing values we have ourselves affirmed. In the pursuit of these kinds of values, we would ideally have access to a more positive form of motivation—intrinsic motivation. Taking the best actions towards optimising our most deeply affirmed values would feel like an honour, not a duty, and we should not require the threat of guilt to pursue it whole-heartedly.
    
    What if such intrinsic motivation is not forthcoming? It’s possible that we have failed to correctly identify our most deeply affirmed values—self knowledge of this kind is admittedly hard to come by. I suppose it could also be the case that connecting these values into our motivation and decision-making systems is its own skill that needs to be honed before we are in practice impelled to take actions. But, in principle, intrinsic motivation can replace the spur of guilt.
    

Thus we have the titular thesis: it is possible to dismiss, refine, and ultimately obviate various different forms of guilt you might experience, sparing a lot of unnecessary suffering, and leaving us in the end with a more effective motivation system.

Despite the title, the book contains another, to my mind equally-valuable contribution. Soares is cautious not to insist that the reader adopt his own deeply affirmed value system—a *humanist goal of filling the universe with the light of sentience and eliminating as much as possible the tragedy of suffering and unwanted death. But for those that find this vision compelling, Soares devotes as much of the book to practical advice for approaching this cosmic challenge.

The advice centres around the concept of the *dark world,* which is the term Soares uses to refer to the current state of the universe. Namely, a cold and uncaring universe in which many suffer and all die; in which our civilisation crushes the curiosity and goodness of children and people have to fight to avoid starvation; in which we can’t save everyone even if we would go to the ends of the galaxy to save one life if we only could; in which we ourselves are imperfect and may fundamentally lack the skills we need to make a difference.

In the face of all of this darkness, what are we to do?

*   Step one is to ‘see the dark world.’ A natural response to bad situations is to refuse to acknowledge them. This is deadly for motivation, as it robs us of the deep spring of resolve that comes from the impetus to improve ourselves and the world according to our values. We are not to make excuses for why the darkness is actually acceptable—simply accept that it is not. Likewise, we are to come to terms with the possibility that we will fail, and waste no effort preparing excuses for when we do. Accept that we may fail and focus, clear-mindedly, on avoiding that outcome as much as possible. Cultivate a healthy kind of defiance that reflexively refuses to accept a bad state of the world. Acknowledging the darkness may give rise to strong feelings of anger, blame, cynicism—channel these feelings into resolve.
*   Step two is to ‘become unable to despair.’ Another strong feeling that may arise in the face of the dark world is despair. To despair is natural, but as much as possible, we must refuse to *buckle* and instead *buckle down.* Soares discusses strategies for rising to the challenge despite feeling hopeless. We are not to begrudge the universe when we learn of its dark state, we are to take this in stride and proceed to make things better on the timeline we were born into. We are to detach feelings of grimness from the global state of things, and instead license ourselves to feel curious or happy at times, reserving grimness for when it can make a difference. There are sparks of light around us—hold on to these sparks against despair.
*   Step three is to artfully fight on the side of the light. Soares offers a collection of snippets of instrumental rationality advice for imperfect mortals doing what they can to push back overwhelming darkness. Don’t work yourself ragged (it’s usually ineffective as a method of pursuing long-term goals). Inhabit a mindset in which your competence is assumed, rather than one in which you constantly doubt your abilities. Brainstorm things that you should ‘obviously’ do if you want your project to succeed, and make sure you do them. Avoid decision paralysis by time-boxing action selection—finding the action that is actually optimal requires infinite effort, so you might as well do the best you can after some finite time thinking. Find confidence not in your object-level beliefs or actions, but in your hierarchy of error-correction processes. Hone the skill of reflexively responding well to obstacles in your path. Maybe, given just the right situation, you should be willing to get desperate, going all out and holding nothing of yourself back. Maybe, some kinds of success are only available to people who are willing to show the right amount of recklessness, diving into the unknown on the assumption that they can figure out how to handle whatever they encounter.

In conclusion, we may not know exactly what we are fighting for, and we may not know how best to fight for it, but it’s clear that whatever the case, we won’t get far by wallowing in guilt on a regular basis. Instead, reflect on your most deeply affirmed values, accept when reality is not acceptable according to those values, and resolve to do something about it. Impel yourself forward with the fire of intrinsic motivation rather than dragging yourself on pain of guilt. If your values are ambitious, the battle will be hard—the odds are not in your favour. So fight smart, play the long game, and learn from your mistakes. Maybe, just maybe, the future will become a little lighter for your trouble.