= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Rationality Quotes May 2013 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (387)
This is technically true for inclusive definitions of 'want' but highly misleading. There is a world of difference between "I want X but the opportunity cost (Y) is too great" and "I actively prefer !X". X and Y may be the prevention of parasitic worm infections and combating malaria. Precisely which limited resource is being allocated (time or money) changes little.
If "I don't have time" is to be replaced with an expression which conveys more personal acceptance of responsibility then it would be reasonable to translate it to "I have other priorities" but verging on disingenuous to translate it into "I don't want to".
I think you're reading this too literally. To my mind this says "You have the power to allocate your time" which is a non-trivial realization to some people. You can also understand this as saying "You allocate time to tasks according to how much you want to do them", an observation which also does not always rise to the conscious level.
This also requires a strange definition of "want" in order to become correct. Actions chosen for instrumental reasons sometimes differ from both the emotional urge and the all-else-equal reasoned preference, and so it's not particularly natural to include them under the label of "wanting".
I see no problems with filing "actions chosen for instrumental reasons" under the category of "want" in this context. They could be consolidated with their goal, anyway -- for time allocation purposes there is not much sense in separating "walking to the fridge and opening it" out of the general "get a beer".
This becomes problematic when you try to distinguish an instrumental decision from its terminal valuation, for example "I don't want to be commuting to work, but I choose to do so in order to get there." (negative all-else-equal valuation, positive instrumental valuation).
Again: in this context. Sometimes you need to decompose instrumentality from its terminal goal, sometimes you don't need to.