I hate to double post, but I feel this deserves its own space.
I have recently been re-evaluating Newcomb's problem. I had not considered Newcomb's problem since I was quite a bit younger, and I two-boxed in those days, thinking "But certainty-" followed by something unrelated to probabilities. Since then, I've re-examined the problem and decided that one-boxing holds the most water. Anything less is accepting less. It's losing.
Now, proud in my new appraisal of the problem, I have a chance to apply it to real life. Great.
Box A: I live in a desperately poor, desperately uneducated, desperately uninteresting rural area. My mentor, who ran the local library, has passed and I am being eyed to fill the shoes of director of the library. The job will pay little, which is plenty for this area. I can take the job and have security. I will never do much, but I will never have to do much. Of course, there is also the idea of "I could just do it for a few years," but then I imagine myself slowing ticking from 24 to 27 to 30. I wouldn't improve or do anything important. I'd just run a library that requires little effort to run. If I left a few years later, I'd have nothing to show for it except the library. So, why leave the library at all, at that point? At least here I have security.
Box B: I have been talking with a friend about the possibility of us moving to a larger city (one that has an LW group, if that tells you anything). The city would have more to do, more to see, and, most importantly, I would no longer feel like the smartest person in the room. People better than me would be frequent, forcing me to actually learn and improve. I could involve myself in groups that wanted to do more than work. The only thing is I have no job lined up and none of my applications are returning hits in this city. If nothing comes in by June and I still resolve to do this, I may have to go without any possibility of work in my field. Maybe one of my applications will eventually strike or maybe not.
In Box A I have security. In Box B might be something worthwhile, but unlike Newcomb's problem, I'm not guaranteed $1,000,000 even if Box B is full. It may be $500,000. It may be $500. It may be nothing.
I always want to put what I learn to use. I just did not realize it would be this discouraging. I'm not sure how to win at this game. Which is why I'm glad life is not played as quickly as thought experiments!
You could use a simple and safe job as a leverage for other opportunities. Not sure how much of the following could apply to your situation.
Generally, sometimes you have an idea of a project which gives you (a) a lot of money later, but no money right now, or (b) a lot of other utility, but no money. If you need to pay your bills, you need to take some job. But sometimes the job is exhausting, and you have no more time or energy left to work on your project.
One solution is to try making a lot of money, and later take some free time and do the project. A ty...
This is the public group instrumental rationality diary for May 1-15.
Thanks to cata for starting the Group Rationality Diary posts, and to commenters for participating.
Previous diary: April 16-30
Next diary: May 16-31
Rationality diaries archive