You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

So8res comments on Open thread, July 16-22, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: David_Gerard 15 July 2013 08:13PM

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

Comments (297)

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

Comment author: So8res 17 July 2013 06:13:46AM *  1 point [-]

I would agree completely, if humans were perfect rationalists in full control of their minds. In my (admittedly narrow) experience, people who have the creation of art / attainment of knowledge as a terminal goal usually create better art / attain more knowledge than people who have similar instrumental goals.

I am indeed suggesting that the best way to achieve your current terminal goals may be to change your preference ordering over lotteries over possible worlds. If you are a young college student worried about the poor economy, and all you really want is a job, you should consider finding a passion.

Now, you could say that such people don't really have "get a job" as a terminal goal, that what they actually want is stability or something. But that's precisely my point: humans aren't perfect rationalists. Sometimes they have stupid end-games. (Think of all the people who just want to get rich.)

If you find yourself holding a terminal goal that should have been instrumental, you'd better change your terminal goals.

Comment author: [deleted] 17 July 2013 07:20:26PM 1 point [-]

I am indeed suggesting that the best way to achieve your current terminal goals may be to change your preference ordering over lotteries over possible worlds. If you are a young college student worried about the poor economy, and all you really want is a job, you should consider finding a passion.

Ok. I disagree. I tried to separate what you want in the abstract form the physical fact of what this piece of meat you are sending into the future "wants" but then you went and re-conflated them. I'm tapping out.

Comment author: So8res 17 July 2013 08:29:13PM -2 points [-]

For what it's worth, I don't think we disagree. In your terminology, my point is that people don't start with clearly separated "abstract wants" and "meat wants", and often have them conflated without realizing it. I hope we can both agree that if you find yourself thus confused, it's a good idea to adjust your abstract wants, no matter how many people refer to such actions as a "path to the dark side".

(Alternatively, I can understand rejecting the claim that abstract-wants and meat-wants can be conflated. In that case we do disagree, for it seems to me that many people truly believe and act as if "getting rich" is a terminal goal.)