People tend to undervalue obvious advice. We as humans need constant reminders of 'obvious' advice. Posts as these can help.
Warning: Rather obvious things will be said below.
I don't know what 'obvious' means. That something can be derived with minimum effort? That something can be verified with trivial effort? That something comes to mind quickly given ... what?
I haven't seen such a list and I'm not aware of such a structured presentation of the capabilities. But I guess it exists.
You didn't provide refernces but using the key terms from your first list google turns up the following (your post being the first hit):
These all seem relevant.
I don't know what 'obvious' means.
The post isn't complicated. It presents simple ideas. It's not full of complicated jargon.
I think it's good to have posts like this on LW.
I think it's good to have posts like this on LW.
I fully agree.
My comment about the obviousness was partly meant to highlight that it is seldom clear what is obvious and what isn't.; esp. in hindsight.
Sometimes even seemingly trivial things have to be stated lest some taken for granted non-fact bites you.
I think that this post has a certain quality, that unusual for LW.
I think 'obvious' is a word that not bad, but it's not perfect for naming that quality. Do you have a better suggestion for naming that quality?
I think that this post has a certain quality, that unusual for LW.
You may not have meant it, but I take this to be high praise. I've recently been trying to expand out of the thinking framework engendered by LW.
I think 'obvious' is a word that not bad, but it's not perfect for naming that quality. Do you have a better suggestion for naming that quality?
Perhaps, "clarificatory", "definitional", "retrospectively obvious", "frameworking"?
You may not have meant it, but I take this to be high praise. I've recently been trying to expand out of the thinking framework engendered by LW.
Given that I wrote probably a dozen times in the last months on LW that we should speak more about basics, it's praise.
I guess the reason I wrote that was people might say something like: "Well of course meta-capabilities are important. Duh." But thanks for reminding me that the "obvious" might be valuable; or not be so "obvious" at all.
By the way, also thanks for the links. I made up the list myself. I will look into other references as well.
That something comes to mind quickly given ... what?
Given common cultural background, I'd imagine.
Thus, there can be a combinatorial explosion in actual opportunities for each extra capability acquired. Sticking with the bike example, suppose you also know how to drive a car and own a car; suppose your car can carry your bike; suppose you have good fitness; and suppose you have access to wilderness. Now, you can take your bike to the wilderness and bike around and enjoy the nature. This capability in turn allows a great new mode of socialization.
You have here five additional "suppose thats" for two extra "allows". I suggest that this is not a good example of a combinatorial explosion.
Point taken, thanks. I hope that the main point is clear though. The "suppose thats" that I've assumed allow for much more than these two additional "allows" that I've stated. But yes, the example could've been better.
Warning: Rather obvious things will be said below. (EDIT: May not be so obvious after all. Sorry.)
The capabilities approach is an important theoretical framework in political and moral philosophy, often used in the context of development and welfare economics, pioneered by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. The principal insight I want to import from the capabilities approach is that the main goal of any development exercise should be to increase the capabilities of individuals. In other words, I may not be able to tell what goals you would like to achieve, but I can make a reasonable guess that capabilities like health, access to jobs, access to food-supply etc. would help you achieve what you want to achieve. The capabilities approach doesn't necessarily privilege a life-script.
There are three main categories of capabilities: personal, social and environmental. Let me illustrate with an example from the Stanford Encyclopedia article. Suppose you own a bike. This in itself isn't very useful. You value the bike because you can use it to move around. But in order to be able to use it fruitfully, you need a degree of all three categories of capabilities: (1) Personal capabilities: You must know how to ride a bike. The quality of your health determines how far you go. Your bike must be in good condition. (2) Social capabilities: It should be socially acceptable to ride a bike; for example you may live in a country where women aren't allowed to ride bikes. (3) Environmental capabilities: You need to have decent roads to ride the bike. You must have access to bike repair shops. It must be safe to ride a bike.
Another major insight of the capabilities approach is that capabilities can combine and are inter-dependent. Thus, there can be a combinatorial explosion in actual opportunities for each extra capability acquired. Sticking with the bike example, suppose you also know how to drive a car and own a car; suppose your car can carry your bike; suppose you have good fitness; and suppose you have access to wilderness. Now, you can take your bike to the wilderness and bike around and enjoy the nature. This capability in turn allows a great new mode of socialization. Further, you have a capability to further improve your fitness.
My goal here is to apply this approach to personal development. First let me make a tentative list of what capabilities seem worth acquiring (far from comprehensive or complete):