= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Doesn't that describe all of life? Why waste <n> years of your life on something you won't even remember afterwards?
Many philosophies of life fall apart on the cosmic macro scale. Lets not move the goalpost into post-transhumanism, it is clear that is not what ZankerH is talking about.
In response to
Rationality Quotes Thread February 2015
“What about honor and ethics?” “We’ve got honor in us, but it’s our own code...not the make-believe rules some frightened little man wrote for the rest of the frightened little men. Every man’s got his own honor and ethics, and so long as he sticks to ’em, who’s anybody else to point the finger? You may not like his ethics, but you've no right to call him unethical.”
-Alfred Bester, in The Demolished Man chapter 6 p 84, according to wikiquote
I like how this touches on respecting the agency of others. The idea that: I do not like how you operate, but I will respect that you are a thinking person, and for that reason alone, deserving of respect.
Physically write a letter to the first offerer, thanking them for the offer but telling them you've found a better position, and hoping that they find another suitable candidate. Sign it.
You don't have to actually send the letter (until you decide to take another position, and even then an email will be better), but it may help you alieve that you are not committed to the first offer.
This greatly reduced the cognitive dissonance. Thanks.
Are there legal or ethical considerations? I mean, you've accepted an offer somewhere and presumably they've stopped their search for candidates; do you feel, or might you be legally, obliged to take it?
(I would be surprised if they had any legal case against you, and even more surprised if they had enough of a case to be worth pursuing. But if I were in your situation I'd feel quite guilty if I accepted a job offer and then took another job instead.)
No legal grounds, it is very much the equivalent of quitting within the first 90 days (I think, I'll look it up if it matters).
There is the ethical consideration, but that is the one of the hard truths of life; employment is not secure until you've already been working for 90 days. And then, only slightly more so.
So, in short: it would be bad sense for them to stop searching for a candidate, as a back up should I cancel and as potential future hires. And they would be naive to think I've stopped my job hunt, not all lines of inquiry resolve at the same rate. It is easy for them to predict that I may receive competing offers.
p.s.: I'm not a defaulting moloch leech, I swear. The early acceptance was to allow me to give very early notice in my current position and to facilitate a smooth exit that leaves everyone happy.
In response to
Group Rationality Diary, January 16-31
I'm on a job hunt and I've put the word out through several avenues. One of my early applications came back with an offer that passed my satisficing limits. I accepted it to tie it down and to allow me to give early notice.
Now some of my other lines of inquiry are turning up promising, competitive offers. And my brain refuses to take them seriously, it is committed to the first offer and will not take an unbiased assessment of anything else on the table.
This is a problem. I'm going to re-read Hold Off On Proposing Solutions and Seeing with Fresh Eyes to look for solutions. Any recommendations? any recommendations from other sources?
[This isn't a direct response to Mark, but a reply to encourage more responses]
To add another helpful framing, if you don't have children, but think as an adult part of your attraction to LessWrong was based on how your parents raised you with an appreciation with rationality, how did that go? Obvious caveats about how memories of childhood are unreliable and fuzzy, and personal perspectives on how your parents raised you will be biased.
I was raised by secular parents, who didn't in particular put a special emphasis on rationality when raising me, compared to other parents. However, for example, Julia and Jesse Galef have written on their blog of how their father raised them with rationality in mind.
Thank for putting up this branch Evan, I don't have children. I think my raising helped my rationality, but the lens of time is known to distort, so take it with a grain of salt.
Most of my rationality influence was a lead by example case. Accountability and agency were encouraged too, they may have made fertile soil for rational thought.
Ethics conversations were had and taken seriously (paraphrase: 'Why does everyone like you?' 'Cause I always cooperate' 'Don't people defect against you?' 'Yes, but defectors are rare and I more than cover my losses when dealing with other cooperators').
Thinking outside the box was encouraged (paraphrase: 'interfering the receiver is a 10 yard penalty, I can't do that.' 'What's worse, 10 yards or a touchdown?' 'But it is against the rules.' 'Why do you think the rule is for only 10 yards, and not kicked from the game? Do you think the rule, and penalty, are part of the game mechanics?').
Goal based action was encouraged, acting on impulse was treated as being stupid (paraphrase: 'Why did you get in a fight' 'I was being bullied' 'Did fighting stop the bullying?' 'No' 'Ok, what are you going to try next?').
I think that the hero-sidekick framework is just wrong for most kinds of relationships.
And what is your take on the A-Teamist Face-Planner team structure? Do you see it as similar to the Hero-Sidekick structure as described by Swimmer963? How about the 007-Q relationship?
There are too many fictional examples in this discussion, any non-anecdotal real life case studies?
In response to
The Importance of Sidekicks
I am male. I have high testosterone. I love competing and winning. I am ambitious and driven. I like to make a lot of money. I make a lot of money. I prefer the sidekick role.
If someone asks me "King or Prince?" I will respond with Prince every time. Hey, you can still be royalty without the weight of the world on your shoulders. I would still be a hard working Prince, too. If some asks me "Candidate or Campaign Manager?" I'll take Campaign Manager, thank you. If someone asks me "President or Chief of Staff?" well, you know the answer by now.
The more money I make and the more wisdom and experience I acquire, the more people naturally turn to me to lead. And I do it when necessary. I'm even pretty good at it. But, I don't love it. I don't require it. I don't see myself as growing more in that direction.
Upvoting is not sufficient given the very difference perspectives in the comments here.
I read the above article and nodded along the way thinking 'this is insightful and adds a great context to discuss and think about many industrious relationships' never once did gender cross my mind. I was floored to see it a major item in the comments.
I am male. I have high testosterone. I love competing and winning. I am ambitious and driven. I like to make a lot of money. I make a lot of money. I prefer the sidekick role.
Ditto. I've never identified as subservient, but my entire career I've found leaders to work for whose skill set I could compliment. I saw this as an issue of too many cooks ruin the stew and too many chiefs, not enough indians.
To sum this up, I think the Sidekick role is a matter of effective team building and is as far from gender as anything else in the world.
Any links to discussions on this item elsewhere? As some rationalist said, two rationalists with the same info can't help but agree.
Do you know of any examples, fictional or real, of a male sidekick to a female hero?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
No. What does a week of bliss give you? Nothing but a fond memory. (I'm assuming you don't gain the mental regroup and recovery affect associated with vacations)
A week of bliss builds nothing, and a wirehead bliss does not improve yourself. You have learnt nothing from that week. As far as future prosperity goes it is the same as a week of work drudgery in which no growth happens.