There are experiences that are bad for your head.
From your own behavior, or from other people's talk — the triggers vary.
Experiences bad for the head make your head worse. They keep you from thinking normally.
Not temporary — driven in like a wedge, and you can't remove them unless you consciously work at it over time.
Even when removed, that usually means forgetting (no longer having to notice) — not returning to a state where they never existed.
There's an interesting bit in Ted Chiang's short story "Exhalation."
In the world the protagonist lives in, AI has advanced so every memory is recorded and forgetting doesn't happen.
The protagonist long felt haunted by something cruel their daughter once said — later, having overcome it and after much time, they watch the memory they hated recalling, and discover the line wasn't "said to me by my daughter" but "said by me to my daughter."
They hurry to talk to the daughter, and get a cold reception.
A symbolic bit of the daughter's reply goes roughly like this.
"I'm grateful for the posture of facing a painful event and trying to apologize and overcome it. But that is for you. Don't come see me every time you 'overcome' it. I myself went to therapy without telling anyone — the wound was that deep — and otherwise I've often been exhausted by your victim-framed view of things."
In ordinary fiction this might end with forgiveness and a hug — here the answer is harsh.
But it's thoroughly fair. Analogize to bullying: "The bully apologized — that doesn't mean easy forgiveness." Obviously. Wedge-memories can't be made never to have existed.
The daughter's lines are bracing and memorable — yet I haven't stacked enough correct behavior myself to mock the protagonist's self-centered apology from the outside, so I also deeply empathize with the protagonist.
Defining "experiences bad for the head" in one phrase is hard, and psychologically I don't want to, so I won't.
Instead I'll write what I think is good for the head / bad for the head.
[Good]
- Debating with smart people
┗ (※ "Smart people" is loaded; I know this line itself is risky.)
- Sleeping deeply for a long time
- Reading interesting books / blogs / writing
┗ Plenty of interesting books — interesting blogs are painfully rare! Smart people, please write blogs!!! Please! Really! (※ And Google, make them findable!)
- Writing a blog
- Looking something up and connecting surrounding knowledge
- Sorting confusing information
- Finishing what you planned on schedule
- Becoming able to do something new through training
- Being thanked by others for what you did
[Bad]
- Doing things you believe are meaningless
- Repeating the same thing
- Seeing and hearing ridiculous talk
Just what came to mind — more accurate fits exist — but roughly this.
Enter ChatGPT! So what does that mean, I ask.
ChatGPT says:
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
① Experiences that damage the health of thinking
"Experiences bad for the head" aren't just unpleasant memories — they distort your thinking patterns and block sound judgment.
They arise from others' talk or your past actions; they don't fade naturally, and keep affecting you unless you consciously remove them.
② Experiences that promote intellectual growth
To keep thinking healthy you need stimulating, insight-rich experience.
For example: "debating smart people," "reading interesting books or blogs," "organizing information," "finishing plans on schedule" — these promote intellectual sorting and growth.
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
End quote.
I see.
"But sometimes you need to deliberately warp your thinking patterns — accept different values — put another way, experiences where your existing thinking loses. What do you think?" I ask.
ChatGPT answers.
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
[Why it's needed]
① Evolution and expansion of thinking
Human thought tends to optimize inside a formed framework. Without touching new viewpoints and having your thinking "lose," existing patterns only strengthen and nothing changes.
Scientific progress also happens when old theories lose to new ones. Intellectual growth needs accepting that your ideas get negated, and flexibility to take in the new.
② Correcting bias
Unconsciously people gather convenient information and exclude inconvenient information (confirmation bias).
Fixing distortion of thought requires deliberately touching different values and "losing."
Improving adaptability
In a fast-changing era, clinging to one frame is a risk.
In business and marketing, old success patterns often stop working. When conventional thought breaks, you gain power to accept new strategy and adapt.
② Improving metacognition
When you "lose," you train seeing the process objectively: "I thought this, but there's also that view."
That corrects false beliefs and excessive self-affirmation and leads to more balanced decisions.
[Why it isn't always needed]
① Risk of the foundation of thinking collapsing
If existing thought is completely denied without end, identity can collapse.
For example, being told long-held beliefs and ethics were all wrong can lead to extreme skepticism or apathy.
Danger of excessive relativism
If "all values should be accepted" goes too far, you can't judge what's right.
For example, accepting clearly unethical acts (fraud, discrimination, violence) because "different values" damages the health of thinking.
③ Confusing noise with essence
Accepting losing experiences too much makes you susceptible to unimportant opinions, rumors, and agitating information.
Not every different value is useful; some filtering is needed.
Lowered self-affirmation
Constantly feeling "I'm wrong" drains confidence to act.
Even capable people, under constant criticism, can decide "I have no value" and stop taking on challenges.
[Conclusion: balance matters]
Not total losing — choosing "the parts that should lose" and losing those is best.
"Experiences that shake thinking" are needed, but not accepting everything — picking viewpoints useful to you matters.
Gaining new viewpoints by losing while keeping your core (values / principles) is the key to healthy thinking.
In other words, "lose sometimes, but don't always lose" might be about right.
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
Interesting answer. "In what categories is it OK to lose?" I ask.
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
[OK to lose]
① Things about "facts"
Losing to facts (data, statistics, scientific knowledge) ties directly to healthy thinking.
Ex: "This ad should work!" → if data shows "no effect," admit it.
② Things about "widening view"
Categories that show "my common sense was narrow."
Ex: other cultures, history, science, art, philosophy → new viewpoints expand thinking.
③ Things from "experience"
People who actually did it vs people who only thought at a desk — the ones who did it are stronger.
Ex: someone who's never started a company saying "starting is easy" should lose to critique from people who've done it.
④ Things that affect the future
If changing this thought improves your future, losing has value.
Ex: "This way of thinking unlocks better marketing strategy" → if future-positive, OK to lose.
[OK not to lose]
① Groundless criticism
"Your thinking is wrong!" → if it's just opinion, no value in losing.
② Your core values
Parts tied to the essence of your life or work.
Ex: "I want marketing to make people happier" — someone saying "marketing is trash" doesn't mean you should lose.
③ Irresponsible opinions
"Maybe just do this?" from people who won't actually do it — no need to lose.
Conclusion
Choosing "who you lose to" and "which categories" matters.
Losing to facts and data: OK
Losing to things that widen viewpoint: OK
Groundless criticism or threats to your core values: no need to lose
In other words, "losing strategically" leads to intellectual growth.
=========================================
ChatGPT, you really say good things.
Finally: "What can I concretely prepare?" I ask.
=========================================
What you can prepare sits under three views: "widen the frame of thinking," "lose appropriately," "strengthen what you should win."
1. Widen the frame of thinking (prep for losing)
① Deliberately increase "opponents to lose to"
Talk with people from industries/fields you haven't engaged
Ex: engineers, researchers, artists, politicians, historians
Read books/blogs/papers outside your specialty
Ex: marketing × philosophy, engineering × economics, history × investing
Step into fields that seem hard for you
Ex: listen to people with values you usually avoid (analog thinking vs data thinking, etc.)
② Make "rules for losing"
"When talking with someone with a different view, make being negated the goal"
Before explaining your view, ask "From this angle, is my thinking wrong?"
On Twitter/X, deliberately follow people with different values
Limited to people who can think logically (no agitators)
2. Lose appropriately
① Keep a "loss record"
Make "notes when I lost"
Ex: "I overlooked this view in marketing" / "I used to think X; hearing this person changed that"
Purpose: consciously review the losing moment and fix it as knowledge.
Write a "lessons from losing" series on the blog
Ex: themes like "lately my thinking got overturned"
That way losses accumulate positively.
② Make places where losses can be used
Hold 1-on-1s or study sessions and regularly create "places to lose" in discussion.
Get able to put into words "the moment I revise my thinking."
③ Before deciding something, "borrow other people's heads"
Ex: when planning a new marketing move,
ask someone with a critical view: "If you had to list 10 reasons this fails?"
That finds holes in the strategy beforehand.
3. Strengthen what you should win
Thinking only about losing blurs your values.
So clarifying "I won't yield here" / "I won't lose" is also needed.
① Put your "won't-lose axis" into words
"Marketing isn't manipulating people — it's conveying value"
"Quality media win on readers' real satisfaction, not SEO" — write beliefs you don't want to lose.
② Separate "OK to lose" from "must not lose"
OK to lose → viewpoints, ways of thinking, methods (= room to evolve)
Must not lose → your beliefs, ethics, identity (= so the axis doesn't wobble)
Conclusion: prepare to lose, while keeping an axis so you don't lose too much.
Then losing becomes intellectual evolution, and you avoid useless defeats.
Exactly the approach of "lose strategically and get wiser."
=========================================
So it says. Superb. This itself might be an experience where thinking loses. Even when I'm old and friendless, if ChatGPT is around it'll be fun.
I'll end here today. The second half was mostly pasting ChatGPT's answers — but I feel it became a good blog. My ability to write an interesting blog lost before the thinking did. (And with that…?)
Tweet© 2025 ZUUHE