fiddlemath comments on How and Why to Granularize - Less Wrong

62 Post author: lukeprog 17 May 2011 03:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (58)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: fiddlemath 18 May 2011 06:03:43PM 2 points [-]

You can look at just the first step, pretend that's the only step, and ask if it's worth your time. If so, go for it!

Um... no, I don't think this quite suffices. Not every step needs to have terminal value, or even affective instrumental value. They tend to, because it feels good to achieve measurable successes on a decent plan towards things you value.

But, well, I'll crack some eggs and put them in the pan, without expecting any intrinsic return from cracking eggs. On the contrary - it costs me eggs!

Still, I think you're hinting at a good point - from a granularized breakdown of a long task, you can guage whether you'll be motivated to finish by how long you go between really satisfying goals. Thus, I'll not even try to learn how to draw, because little but the very best visual art effects me noticably. However, I am learning to play the piano, because playing even simple songs is a pretty awesome experience for me.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 18 May 2011 06:39:10PM 0 points [-]

Um... no, I don't think this quite suffices. Not every step needs to have terminal value, or even affective instrumental value.

I didn't think the grandparent was suggesting that. My interpretation was something like:

Sometimes steps to achieve terminal values do have their own terminal value and you might not realize it without asking, "is this first step worth my time?"

Comment author: handoflixue 18 May 2011 11:49:25PM 3 points [-]

I would think the better question to ask is "which intermediate steps have terminal value in their own right?"