From Costanza's original thread (entire text):
This is for anyone in the LessWrong community who has made at least some effort to read the sequences and follow along, but is still confused on some point, and is perhaps feeling a bit embarrassed. Here, newbies and not-so-newbies are free to ask very basic but still relevant questions with the understanding that the answers are probably somewhere in the sequences. Similarly, LessWrong tends to presume a rather high threshold for understanding science and technology. Relevant questions in those areas are welcome as well. Anyone who chooses to respond should respectfully guide the questioner to a helpful resource, and questioners should be appropriately grateful. Good faith should be presumed on both sides, unless and until it is shown to be absent. If a questioner is not sure whether a question is relevant, ask it, and also ask if it's relevant.
Meta:
- How often should these be made? I think one every three months is the correct frequency.
- Costanza made the original thread, but I am OpenThreadGuy. I am therefore not only entitled but required to post this in his stead. But I got his permission anyway.
The standard utilitarian argument for pursuing knowledge, even when it is unpleasan to know, is that greater knowledge makes us more able to take actions that fulfil our desires, and hence make us happy.
However the psychological evidence is that our introspective access to our desires and our ability to predict what circumstances will make us happy is terrible.
So why should we seek additional knowledge is we can't use it to make ourselves happier? Surely we should live in a state of blissful ignorance as much as possible.
Because I'm not utilitarian. I'll care about being happy to whatever extent I damn well please. Which is "a fair bit but it is not the most important thing".