You Have to Feel It

I've learnt that just about everything in life boils down to feelings, which is interesting. No matter how rational a person or people claim to be, usually it comes down to feelings... Life choices? Business decisions? Who gets promoted? It's all vibes and feelings. People will deliberate and argue over facts but ultimately there will be some "weighting" factor which is feelings and will make or break the outcome. You can have a perfectly argued decision that fails some vibe check and is hence discarded. Or a terrible argument that plays to some emotional point so is accepted. It's all feelings. Rare is the opposite.

You can analyze in different ways by choosing different frames of reference, etc., but choosing how to feel isn't the same. For most, "choosing to how feel" is difficult to attempt.

This distinction is an absurdity first written to provide a rational for why everything being done in the name of Reason felt so bad.

My theory of life is that Everything is Vibes. I work in the financial industry with individuals who think very highly of their fact driven decision making when it always boils down to vibes. Facts be dammed

There is something to this. I believe that if you cannot feel, you also cannot reason. It’s almost as if intellectual ability is an application of emotionality rather than something separate. For example, when something makes sense to you, what does that really mean? In my experience, when something “clicks”, that is not intellect. The intellect kicks in to retroactively explain the feeling. The “clicking” itself- that’s the feeling.

Rationale. Is it, though? It would be ironic if anyone found it necessary to construct an argument for why argument is unnecessary. (Though that sounds familiar - classical cynicism maybe?)

Well, acting without reason is unreasonable, for sure. But since I don't think knowledge is (mostly) hierarchical, I don't think chains of reasoning are the main part of how we arrive at preferences. To the extent that knowledge does have foundations, the foundations are beliefs, and they're built in no particular order, and survive by merit of seeming to chime with other beliefs, fitting together in a paradigm. That effect where they seem to chime is an impression, a hunch, which is a feeling.

What reasoning can do is tell you "these two beliefs definitely can't go together, because they're logically incompatible", and then you have to jettison one of them (or attack the argument), even if it feels like they both belong. Somewhat disconcerting.

People want different things. Even if two perfectly rational people agree on a shared model of reality, they still might not agree on what actions to take as a matter of aesthetic preference.

That said, it's true that few are rational and honest. Everyone wants their ideals to be reality, but most people confuse their ideals with reality itself. Even those who can tell the difference may choose to trick others into delusion, so that they may use them for their own benefit.

I used to do that, but not so much now. Being honest with myself and the world is a more interesting way to live.

> You can have a perfectly argued decision that fails some vibe check and is hence discarded

One of the worst hires I ever worked with was excellent on paper, came with good credentials, had an impressive resume, and did objectively well on the interview questions.

However, everyone who interviewed him felt uneasy about him. He failed the vibe check, even though he checked all of the boxes and knew all the right things to say. At the time there was a big push for eliminating bias and being and as objective as possible in hiring, so we were lightly admonished for raising questions based on vibes.

When he was hired, it turned out our vibes were justified. He was someone who played games and manipulated his way through his career. He could say the right things and navigate his way through office politics unscathed while causing damage to everything he touched.

Since then I’ve observed a number of situations where decisions that seemed objectively good but came with weird vibes were later revealed to be bad. Some of the most skilled grifters I’ve encountered were brilliant at appearing objectively good but couldn’t pass vibe checks of experienced business people. Some of the most objectively good deals on paper that came with weird vibes later turned out to be hugely problematic.

I think the trap is thinking that vibes and feelings are wrong and should be ignored in favor of pre-selected objective measures. This is good practice when doing a scientific study, but it’s not a good practice when you’re entering a real world situation where an adversarial party can root out those criteria, fake them, and use your objectivity against you.

This can apply on the personal level too. Almost everything we want is less about the thing, and more about the feeling we think the thing will give us.

This exact same phenomenon bit me at a previous job. We hired a couple of really smooth-talking grifters, and it took a tremendous amount of time to get rid of them. Vibes matter.

I grew to believe that feelings have hard-to-recognize rationales that can be explained if you dig deep enough. Very few people ever do however. Recognizing the rationale is a great skill to have in many circumstances where you give feedback, like code reviews for example. It's also a skill that makes you a better teacher.

It's all very well when it works to your advantage but "vibes" also do the opposite.

People who instantly take against you tend to see every mistake and interpret every event the worst possible way and eventually decide that their initial feelings were right. Once again intuition triumphs. You don't get a chance to prove you're no worse than anyone else - there's just a period of time where they look for evidence to confirm their vibe.

I remember going to work in a country where my apparent origin was seen in a positive way and realising that if I'd been from somewhere in Eastern Europe I'd have been automatically disrespected. I remember going to an interview for a flat share and the moment I said I was from Zimbabwe one guy said that "South Africans" (sic) "drink and party too much." Since I'm white I'd never been on the opposite side of prejudice before and it was highly interesting.

Oh yes, I agree, it is information that's telling you something but because one doesn't usually have a way of putting it into words it's not clear what the message is. People who are different from you are sometimes just nervous and not sure how to present themselves.

I have, however, had to fix the terrible work of grifters (e.g. no unit tests, every minor change breaks something silently) and nobody ever cottoned onto them even though they were quite obvious. The feelings they gave management were "good ones" despite them being terrible for the business. I, as the person fixing stuff after said grifter left suddenly, was blamed for everything that was wrong.

I’m on board with the idea here, but the way you worded it makes it sound like “rationalizing” which is generally considered harmful.

Is this different from rationalizing? Or are we saying that rationalizing is okay if you are sufficiently attuned to your feelings?

What made them bad, could you give more specifics? I don't quite understand what they did that was a mis-hire in your current description.

> He was someone who played games and manipulated his way through his career. He could say the right things and navigate his way through office politics unscathed while causing damage to everything he touched.

Not the one you're replying to, but is the above quote not enough to explain why they were a mis-hire?

Pedantry disqualified all subsequent value of your thinking

The problem with this sort of hiring over time (we hired grifetrs because vibes) is that you never get to compare your vibe failure rate with those who had bad vibes but would have been better hires.

If you go with vibes too much you only ever accumulate data saying that vibes matter.

Not really, the parent was asking for specifics while these are generalities.

I get the impression you're using 'rationalizing' to mean finding a reason for an emotion that doesn't necessarily match the true source of the emotion. This is different from recognizing the existing rationale, which is exactly why it's generally considered harmful. If one gets in the habit of finding new rationales for their emotions that sound more favorable, they can also get in the habit of no longer keeping their true rationales in check, which I would assume tends to result in sociopathic behavior.

You call it "vibes" but I believe this is due to your not recognising the manipulative behaviours as they occur:

- not answering questions (e.g. by asking counterquestions or giving long-winded non-answers)

- not taking responsibility in bad outcomes (when asked about problems they were facing)

- not saying "I don't know"

- using "we" for bad outcomes and "I" for good outcomes (socialising loss, privatising profit)

...

That person sounds exactly like a sociopath (someone who lacks empathy).

Various studies have shown that trying to explain the reasons for a decision can often cause people to make worse decisions. I remember there was one where lay people were able to taste and rate jams with a high degree of correlation to the ratings of expert tasters; but when asked to explain _why_ they rate one jam better than another, their ratings suddenly drastically disagreed with experts'.

Another way to look at it is parallel processing vs sequential processing.. our brains can make a judgement call about a thousand subtle variables and data points that we can't exactly put our fingers on unless we really dig into it, which we usually label as 'feelings', using the parallel part of our brain. The sequential (logical) part can only consider a limited number of variables at a time. I don't think either mode of thinking is inherently worse (we need both), but in our society the feelings part has traditionally been discounted as being 'illogical' by academics.. I think AI has shown us that parallel processing is actually incredibly important to thinking.

But back to the original post, I think 'having good taste' and knowing when something feels like the right solution is one of those hard to define qualities that can make the difference between average and great products (and has far reaching effects in any business).

Yes.

If you didn't know about the case, Damasio's Eliott is the personification of this observation : you have to feel first.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250614042654/https://www.thecu...

This is why recruitment as it exists now is a farce. If everything is ultimately vibes-based, there's no point in portraying the process as objective. I'd say that it's even a sort of fraud to do so.

Set base credentials, lottery of everyone who passes the post, full hire or fire after a short (1 month, at most) probationary period where vibes are considered. There's no reason to go through rounds and rounds of interviews over months. It's a waste of everyone's time. Unless your criteria are completely compromised, you'll find someone within a few tries.

I think a lot of the dysfunction we see in the world can be attributed to people feeling positive emotions towards deeply problematic logical decisions, so they favor them for whatever perceived benefit they'll get from that decision, often overlooking the long-term impacts or how it affects others around them.

We walk a dangerous line when feelings are the executive decision maker, even when we know what we should do (what's right) doesn't give us the same emotional response.

It's like working out. Nobody really wants to do it, but it only stands to benefit the body in the most logical, tangible sense.

I see. I thought it was quite specific.

Interesting that you’d count disagreeing with an expert as a ‘worse’ decision, particularly in such a subjective space as the taste of jam.

If I taste something, and carefully critically consider my experience, I would count that as a better decision, and the opinion of experts don’t really factor into it, because they’re not me.

I always like to say we aren’t rational, we _rationalize_. Much of our decision making process is subconscious / vibes / “system 2”, but we also have a strong need for a sensible narrative structure to our lives. So what hack did nature come up with? Let us make the gut decision based on a bunch of soft heuristics, then rationalize it and wrap it into a sensible narrative before it reaches our conscious mind. Lets us use our efficient system 2 thinking most of the time while avoiding all that messy cognitive dissonance that would arise from a conscious awareness of how chaotic such a system would be at the scale of… oh, say, a global civilization of such creatures ;)

The problem with probationary periods is that, especially if relocation is involved, it's really expensive/disruptive to the employee. I'm reasonably confident that I'd have cleared the bar but I probably wouldn't have taken a job when there was a clear short-term probationary period that required me moving across the country. Just too much risk unless it's an incredible opportunity.

I'm of two minds on this.

1) If such a short probationary period is involved, there's no reason to permanently move during it. A short-term rental will do. If the position works out, then move. (I have done this, it is doable.)

2) Then maybe the job isn't right for you.

The point is to strip the desperation to find The One True Candidate/Job On The First Try, from both sides. Companies are already hiring based on vibes, so this just formalizes it. Employees are already subject to swift termination, based on their employers' whims; this just makes that expectation transparent. From both sides: if it isn't going to work out, we get there quickly and move on. Little is worse than being on a job for half a year, only to get sacked because it took that long for the company to decide that it doesn't like you.

>Employees are already subject to swift termination, based on their employers' whims

Except in practice, they mostly aren't because onboarding takes time and cost and relocating employees (if applicable) has costs.

Of course, if you're a pro football player, here today/gone tomorrow is the norm. But I'm not sure that is or should be the expectation for an engineer. In part, because I doubt there is a "One True Candidate" for the the most part.

Yes, roles shift/requirements shift and both companies and employees move on but there's generally some value to stability on both sides. Even if an employee can get an employer-paid rental for a month, thy've still presumably left their prior job and will have to scramble in various ways.

For fun a few years ago I went through the process of deciding what my favorite song was. I had a gut feeling but wanted to take a scientific approach, I listened to my top listened songs from the last decade over and over as part of a bracket system, where I was trying to explain logically why one was better than the other.

Anyway at the end of it I chose a song that I later realized was definitely not my favorite despite me being unable to explain logically why my favorite song is my favorite song. Basically having to explain things made my ratings worse.