= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
It's true that all moral claims shouldn't be judged by ethical egoism because I believe it, moral claims should be judged by egoism because it's correct. And I have read the metaethics sequence, and found it interesting, though at times lacking. What part of it are you referring to?
I do not think that you comprehend the sequence if it makes you conclude that everyone should be selfish. Either way, I certainly don't want to interact with somebody who thinks that way because it really bums me out, so I'm gonna leave this conversation.
You certainly can find productive tasks enjoyable, but it's common to find productive tasks unenjoyable. People don't hang out with each other because it's productive (except when networking), they hang out because it's fun. The fact that it's good for your health is a bonus, but isn't and shouldn't be the primary motivation.
Having fun is certainly something that you can do, but that doesn't mean that it is obviously morally optimal.
Not obviously morally optimal, but it is actually morally optimal, for a broad enough sense of "having fun". But I say this as an ethical egoist.
but it is actually morally optimal, for a broad enough sense of "having fun". But I say this as an ethical egoist.
Just because you are an ethical egoist does not mean that ethical egoism is the system by which all moral claims ought to be judged. Have you read the metaethics sequence?
I find that doing fun things like web surfing makes unenjoyable work more bearable, even though it takes longer. And I do think that most productivity posts are about more than not spending time on the Internet - there's a lot about how to cut down on social time and "fun" so you can be as productive as possible.
I find that doing fun things like web surfing makes unenjoyable work more bearable
If you learn mindfulness, you can learn to detach yourself from an impulsive desire to be entertained constantly, and find flow (and happiness, or at least contentment) in tasks you previously thought were unenjoyable.
In response to
The mechanics of my recent productivity
Thanks very much for this. My primary motivation to be productive seems to come from seeing the stories of inspirational, productive people, so this is a big motivator to continue to work hard.
In response to
Open Thread for January 8 - 16 2014
All the productivity posts on LW that I've read, I found mildly disturbing. They all give a sense of excessive regimentation, as well as giving up enjoyable activity - sacrificing a lot for a single goal (or a few goals). I'm sure it's good for getting work done, but there's more to life than work - there's actually enjoying life, having fun, etc.
Downvoted for proposing a poisonous idea. You're implying a dichotomy between being productive and experiencing positive emotions. You can find productive tasks enjoyable. Hanging out with people is an important part of staying healthy, for example, and is generally enjoyable.
there's more to life than work - there's actually enjoying life, having fun, etc.
Having fun is certainly something that you can do, but that doesn't mean that it is obviously morally optimal.
I play it by feel. I tend to wake up feeling refreshed after 7.5h. If I grow tired during the day, I take a nap. In my experience, napping during the day leads to less need for sleep on the following night. I avoid alarms and I trust my body to know what it's doing. Perhaps I will do more experimentation in the future.
You should be cautious of that sort of self-evaluation. There's a sleep study that showed that people are very bad at evaluating how they are affected by not getting enough sleep.:
after just a few days, the four- and six-hour group reported that, yes, they were slightly sleepy. But they insisted they had adjusted to their new state. Even 14 days into the study, they said sleepiness was not affecting them. In fact, their performance had tanked. In other words, the sleep-deprived among us are lousy judges of our own sleep needs. We are not nearly as sharp as we think we are.
But, in that same study, the group that showed little or no cognitive decline slept for 8 hours, and I'm finding recommendations that say 7.5 hours is enough elsewhere, so I'm updating towards 7.5 hours of sleep and naps being all that's needed (as long as you have good sleep hygeine).
Thanks for indirectly prompting me to re-evaluate my sleep habits. I'm doing the same thing as you, basically (learning on my own), so it makes me very happy to discover that I could get more done each day!
it would be more effective to get more sleep.
If you are sleep-deprived getting more sleep is very effective at raising your performance. If you already get enough sleep, sleeping more won't help and might even decrease it.
I think you may have misread what I wrote. I pointed out in my original comment that, from what I've read, 7.5 hours seems to be not enough sleep. So it would follow that getting more sleep would increase performance. I know that excessive sleep also causes problems, but that's clearly not relevant here.
7.5h, my sleep schedule is quite regular. I tend to wake up naturally, and use a wake up light in the winter to wake up to a well-lit room.
Everything I've read suggests that that is not a sufficient amount of sleep to achieve peak performance. I would think that, if you're interested in learning as effectively as possible (especially such difficult material), it would be more effective to get more sleep. Is there some reason you decided that this was enough sleep?
EDIT: Looks like I may be wrong about this not being enough sleep, after doing some more searching.
What do these have to do with rationality?
Rationality includes instrumental rationality, and imaginary friends can be useful for e.g. people who are lonely.
deluding yourself into believing it has autonomy
Not sure of what exactly you mean by "autonomy" here, but there are plenty of processes going on in people's brains which are in some sense autonomous from one's conscious mind. Like the person-emulating circuitry that tulpas are likely born from: if I get a sudden feeling that my friend would disapprove of something I was doing, the process responsible for generating that feeling took autonomous action without me consciously prompting it. And I haven't noticed people suggesting that tulpas would necessarily need to be much more autonomous than that.
that if revealed to other people would make them concerned about your mental well-being
Someone might make his social circle concerned over his mental well-being if he revealed himself to be an atheist. Simply the fact that other people may be prejudiced against something is no strong reason for not doing said something, especially something that is trivial to hide. Also, the fact that tulpas are already a somewhat common mental quirk among a high-status subgroup (writers) can make it easier to calm people's concerns.
and imaginary friends can be useful for e.g. people who are lonely.
The instrumentally rational thing to do, when faced with loneliness, is to figure out how to be with real people. No evidence was presented in the original post that suggests that tulpas mitigate the very real risk factors associated with social isolation. Loneliness is actually a very serious problem, considering most of the research seems to indicate that the best way to be happy is to have meaningful social interactions. Proposing this as a viable alternative would require a very high amount of evidence. A post presenting that evidence would be something that belongs here.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Downvoted for proposing a poisonous idea. There IS an obvious and common dichotomy between being productive and experiencing positive emotions and pretending that it isn't there is bullshit that will only cause people to burn out and be even less productive AND less happy. Yours is the kind of attitude that leads people to say "I can never be as good as this amazing guy so I won't even try". Satisficing morality and happiness separately will get us far more of both.
I agree that productive tasks tend to be less enjoyable, but (at least for me) I still experience SOME positive emotions when I'm being productive, though (and when I'm reflecting on being productive). I just meant that it's possible to be productive and not feel miserable. I started getting more productive when I was able to use mindfulness to detach myself from an impulsive desire to experience happiness. I don't think that's a particularly harmful idea to suggest. I just think it's bad to discourage people from trying to find happiness and contentment in contributing to society (being productive) by implying that it's simply not possible. Also, from a utilitarian standpoint, spending time being productive (making a positive impact on the world) seems better than spending time pursuing individual happiness (to an extent, since you obviously are going to have a hard time being productive if you are miserable). If you value your personal happiness above others (like blacktrance), though, it totally makes sense that you would spend less time trying to make a positive impact on the world. I didn't realize people thought that way when I responded.
I felt sad when you called what I wrote "bullshit", though. I'm new to posting on LW and it makes me feel really depressed and rejected to have one of my first few discussions result in me being insulted like that.