Robert Nozick holds that people want real experience and not the subjective one.
I used to think he is entirely mistaken. It just sounds bad. It depends on how you phrase the question + most people cannot realistically understand the question.
Now I have two more points.
1) In line with the idea that many of our intuitions are rational as general decisions rules (Gigerenzer "ecological rationality" and "simple heuristics that make us smart").
Possibly we have a strong intuition against false deals and fake stuff. The whole experience machine sounds like cheating. If taken to its logical conclusion, it is a good deal when taken seriously, but most people are following their thinking rules, yielding a strong no. Would they be able to truly comprehend it they would have liked it.
2) Goals are another fancy issue. Do we want to feel good? or do we want status, sex and food?
It sounds contradictory, but human motivation need not be defined in feeling good. Humans seem to have in fact multiple motivations, and not all of them are always compatible, nor can we say that people know how to trade off between different goals.
If the evolutionary embedded goals are specific, we can understand why people refuse the experience machine. We have in mind the embedded goal of food not of its experience.
Does it imply that it is not experience that matters? surely not. Because it is quite possible that in a sense people prefer the good experience to the real stuff.
In a sense the want to feel good has better rational justifications, and is more coherent when looking at life, than when taking the various goals themselves seriously.
[PS. goals as means: Sometimes, these goals bring the good life indirectly, as when being immersed in an "important" task makes a person happy. He must truly believe in the essentially valuableness of the goal in order to have the experience.
If goals are means for the good life, than they will tell us to refuse the experience machine, but it will be misleading. Since they are means and the experience of the machine is the very end.]
Some will say that it is not good, since we need a way to determine what people want. How will we determine preferences, wants and goals, if people are so unreliable?
The question is mis-defined. Because it is very possible that we do not have a way to ascertain what people want. Maybe people themselves do not know.
This is also not contradictory to the idea that we should use certain rules for practical purposes, because even without knowing "really" and "for sure", we may take the rules that seem best for us.
But I believe that if we want to know what people want we got to look at the variety of people actions AND related thoughts. Analyzing actions and preferences in light of what people think and know when they decide and act. This is very subtle and unreliable. Smart skeptics will say impossible. But we have a glimpse.
Showing posts with label Happiness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Happiness. Show all posts
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Global life management vs. various good tricks
managing life on the whole is complex, cognitively and emotionally costly, and alienating at times. (it is good at times, too. I am just noticing the negatives.....)
The problem is that getting one's whole life into a rubric and so on is unnatural, and is not necessarily positive.
But there are localized tricks. When you say that sleeping well is very good for the good life, you are not entangled in the whole math of life. It will surely have to be done with care and in the right context. But the change (i.e. sleeping more) is not inherently dependent on the right calculation about one's whole life.
It is probably good in that context to find the tricks that are very efficient. things where the value of change is high relative to the status quo. I believe in the idea of doing extremely profitable things.
The problem is that getting one's whole life into a rubric and so on is unnatural, and is not necessarily positive.
But there are localized tricks. When you say that sleeping well is very good for the good life, you are not entangled in the whole math of life. It will surely have to be done with care and in the right context. But the change (i.e. sleeping more) is not inherently dependent on the right calculation about one's whole life.
It is probably good in that context to find the tricks that are very efficient. things where the value of change is high relative to the status quo. I believe in the idea of doing extremely profitable things.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Why do not we sleep more?
Most Westerns seem to be sleep deprived.
Being tired is negative for many aspects of life.
It makes feeling worse, reduces working and living effectiveness and more.
Are people that stupid?
I have an escape. As I find it hard to fall asleep on command, I cannot be accused for not going to sleep on time. I have relatively less control on it (I still may do tricks, but forgive me, I am superhuman with intelligent excuses)
1) Too "low" in value and salience?
Many see life in terms of their larger goals, namely, their paychecks, social status, family, philosophical ruminations, etc.
Having more sleep is too human, and low level to consider a central goal to fight about. (if something is not important enough, is has lower chance to get throught)
This is compatible with research by Danny Kahneman about moment to moment happiness.
When you ask people "how happy are you?" the response is not very correlated with how much sleep they get.
If you track their day by the hour, however, you will find that sleep has a strong effect.
Sleep affects our actual experience moment to moment. But it does not reflect in our general evaluation of our live (then we look at our paycheck, family status etc.).
2) Another problem is self-control. It takes quite some willpower to put oneself to sleep when an interesting book, TV, or simple laziness whispers us to stay awake.
Controlling oneself is far from simple, or easy.
3) Personal time.
Not all hours in a day are made equal.
A 9 hours worker who spends the first 12 hours of the day in waking up, preparing, commuting, etc. etc. may be free to himself only after 12-13 hours. Then one may even take some time to relax and get some energy and focus.
Ultimately, the last hour he stole from sleep, may have increase his free time from 4 to five hours, or maybe even from 2 to 3. Which is a huge change.
It is arguable how much do we value the experience at work, etc. etc. But the point is true.
4) The complexity of emotional energy, and getting relaxed.
For some people it may take some time or activities inorer to get into a sleep mood and phisiological relaxation.
These procedures are complex and for many unconscious.
So when deciding "I go to sleep on 11 pm". Most will not take it as staying at home from 9 pm on to relax. But rather in an appointment style, meaning that at 11:00 they will say to themselves "now sleep". As if one can go to sleep in an instant.
5) What do we want form life?
While it seems intuitive that people want to feel good, it is not clear that this is what we are inclined to do naturally.
Our evolutionary heritage may have programmed us towards wanting power, status, sex. Not necessarily towards happiness.
If our life is geared towards these other goals, it is no wonder if we fail to sleep enough. It is simply not on the agenda.
Being tired is negative for many aspects of life.
It makes feeling worse, reduces working and living effectiveness and more.
Are people that stupid?
I have an escape. As I find it hard to fall asleep on command, I cannot be accused for not going to sleep on time. I have relatively less control on it (I still may do tricks, but forgive me, I am superhuman with intelligent excuses)
1) Too "low" in value and salience?
Many see life in terms of their larger goals, namely, their paychecks, social status, family, philosophical ruminations, etc.
Having more sleep is too human, and low level to consider a central goal to fight about. (if something is not important enough, is has lower chance to get throught)
This is compatible with research by Danny Kahneman about moment to moment happiness.
When you ask people "how happy are you?" the response is not very correlated with how much sleep they get.
If you track their day by the hour, however, you will find that sleep has a strong effect.
Sleep affects our actual experience moment to moment. But it does not reflect in our general evaluation of our live (then we look at our paycheck, family status etc.).
2) Another problem is self-control. It takes quite some willpower to put oneself to sleep when an interesting book, TV, or simple laziness whispers us to stay awake.
Controlling oneself is far from simple, or easy.
3) Personal time.
Not all hours in a day are made equal.
A 9 hours worker who spends the first 12 hours of the day in waking up, preparing, commuting, etc. etc. may be free to himself only after 12-13 hours. Then one may even take some time to relax and get some energy and focus.
Ultimately, the last hour he stole from sleep, may have increase his free time from 4 to five hours, or maybe even from 2 to 3. Which is a huge change.
It is arguable how much do we value the experience at work, etc. etc. But the point is true.
4) The complexity of emotional energy, and getting relaxed.
For some people it may take some time or activities inorer to get into a sleep mood and phisiological relaxation.
These procedures are complex and for many unconscious.
So when deciding "I go to sleep on 11 pm". Most will not take it as staying at home from 9 pm on to relax. But rather in an appointment style, meaning that at 11:00 they will say to themselves "now sleep". As if one can go to sleep in an instant.
5) What do we want form life?
While it seems intuitive that people want to feel good, it is not clear that this is what we are inclined to do naturally.
Our evolutionary heritage may have programmed us towards wanting power, status, sex. Not necessarily towards happiness.
If our life is geared towards these other goals, it is no wonder if we fail to sleep enough. It is simply not on the agenda.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tricks to improve life in context
There are tricks that have the power to seriously improve one's life.
Certainly one got to check first about seriousness etc. but we speak with smart people who talk about practically relevant tricks.
Two mistakes are common and must be corrected.
1) Not maximizing the effect. Do not be "realistic" or conservative. Some new things you learn have the power to transform life for good.
Take it to the max (with prudence, for sure).
Many times there is way more potential than we think. We just have to be naive kids and take it to the most power possible.
2) Do not forget other things because of the new trick.
We collect through life lots of experience, decision rules, understandings etc.
It sounds tempting to think, that if for example we have a new trick to reduce stress, we can afford stress freely, or ignore other things to do to relax.
We must leave in place the good things we know etc.
Only after time and experience, we may use the new tricks to dispense of things that are no longer relevant.
Post Script
If you change, it has effects all over the board.
There is a lot of dependency in life.
Much of our rules, understanding etc. are based on our experiences expectations about our behavior, expectations about experience and so on.
Once we change, we may take a quick look at our whole inventory and look whether everything is still relevant. Some things may no longer be useful, or are harmful now.
Certainly one got to check first about seriousness etc. but we speak with smart people who talk about practically relevant tricks.
Two mistakes are common and must be corrected.
1) Not maximizing the effect. Do not be "realistic" or conservative. Some new things you learn have the power to transform life for good.
Take it to the max (with prudence, for sure).
Many times there is way more potential than we think. We just have to be naive kids and take it to the most power possible.
2) Do not forget other things because of the new trick.
We collect through life lots of experience, decision rules, understandings etc.
It sounds tempting to think, that if for example we have a new trick to reduce stress, we can afford stress freely, or ignore other things to do to relax.
We must leave in place the good things we know etc.
Only after time and experience, we may use the new tricks to dispense of things that are no longer relevant.
Post Script
If you change, it has effects all over the board.
There is a lot of dependency in life.
Much of our rules, understanding etc. are based on our experiences expectations about our behavior, expectations about experience and so on.
Once we change, we may take a quick look at our whole inventory and look whether everything is still relevant. Some things may no longer be useful, or are harmful now.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Why does not everybody practice meditation?
Fact 1: Everybody I know who tried meditation has only praise for it. "It is good" "Great" "The best thing I did in my life" and so on.
My experience has been the same. It was so much calming and energizing that I wonder why I ever stopped after I started a few years ago.
Fact 2: Scientific experiments have shown one after the other that meditation improves mood. Decreases anxiety and depression and various other good outcomes.
There were significant effects from meditation.
Puzzle: why only 1% of the population (in Israel) practices meditation?
It sounds one of the greatest irrationalities in life management. There is almost no better deal I know of.
Yet people ignore it largely. Probably showing that humans management of life is far from what reason would expect.
My experience has been the same. It was so much calming and energizing that I wonder why I ever stopped after I started a few years ago.
Fact 2: Scientific experiments have shown one after the other that meditation improves mood. Decreases anxiety and depression and various other good outcomes.
There were significant effects from meditation.
Puzzle: why only 1% of the population (in Israel) practices meditation?
It sounds one of the greatest irrationalities in life management. There is almost no better deal I know of.
Yet people ignore it largely. Probably showing that humans management of life is far from what reason would expect.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The block of multi-parameter optimizations
Assuming there are good ways to improve life, that almost nobody follows. Why?
People are not entirely stupid (they are, but that is a different story).
A person moves through life from choice to choice and by all kinds of circumstances and decisions he is getting a whole life put in place with various preferences, learned wisdom (which is mostly depending on his own situations), obligations, etc.
The guy may have his life truly optimized, if we are watching one parameter at a time, and asking what other levels for this specific parameter would be right. For every single thing the person looks at he finds that his current preference is about optimal.
What we perceive as a possible unrealized optimization potential that is different from what the lad does, involves usually changing several things in life together (a perception of things, priorities, and anything else that is under an individual's control).
This is a very different story. Objectively, it is much harder to optimize and even check all various combinations of changes in a system.
A person does not - and cannot - check all possible combinations to find what theoretical mix would be better than the status quo.
Then, we will have both things true.
1) Every parameter in this life is optimal. i.e. No other value state is better.
2) There are unexploited states that are better. These are made of combinations of several at once.
This brings about a very intriguing state. The better options are quite hidden because they involve complex changes. These combined changes, are states we know much less about because they are far from the status quo.
PS. Risks and rewards of changing several things together
We know less about what will happen.
You cannot understand properly what happened. If you have changed more than one thing in your life and you see changes in how you feel and function, you cannot know which change has caused the change in feeling. I had a similar situation when I changed four central things in life together and life became horrible. It was hard to truly know what part every single thing has. With less knowledge, you can manage life less effectively (assuming you manage life, you know to manage life, and that it is good that you manage your life [1])
A person learns a lot about himself throught life. Much knowledge and practical know-how, are based on his regular way of living. When life changes significantly, older habits and knowledge become less relevant, which implies a loss whihc is serious at times.
Some will say that changing makes a person younger, and maybe even makes life worthwhile living (why?).
Living vs. feeling good. Some philosophers believe that being alive is more important than feeling good. changing etc. can make a person more alive. I disagree that anything can be more important than feeling good. But the claim is relevant to the question. I am not sure what people think/act in this regard (i.e. feeling goood vs. "being alive").
People are not entirely stupid (they are, but that is a different story).
A person moves through life from choice to choice and by all kinds of circumstances and decisions he is getting a whole life put in place with various preferences, learned wisdom (which is mostly depending on his own situations), obligations, etc.
The guy may have his life truly optimized, if we are watching one parameter at a time, and asking what other levels for this specific parameter would be right. For every single thing the person looks at he finds that his current preference is about optimal.
What we perceive as a possible unrealized optimization potential that is different from what the lad does, involves usually changing several things in life together (a perception of things, priorities, and anything else that is under an individual's control).
This is a very different story. Objectively, it is much harder to optimize and even check all various combinations of changes in a system.
A person does not - and cannot - check all possible combinations to find what theoretical mix would be better than the status quo.
Then, we will have both things true.
1) Every parameter in this life is optimal. i.e. No other value state is better.
2) There are unexploited states that are better. These are made of combinations of several at once.
This brings about a very intriguing state. The better options are quite hidden because they involve complex changes. These combined changes, are states we know much less about because they are far from the status quo.
PS. Risks and rewards of changing several things together
We know less about what will happen.
You cannot understand properly what happened. If you have changed more than one thing in your life and you see changes in how you feel and function, you cannot know which change has caused the change in feeling. I had a similar situation when I changed four central things in life together and life became horrible. It was hard to truly know what part every single thing has. With less knowledge, you can manage life less effectively (assuming you manage life, you know to manage life, and that it is good that you manage your life [1])
A person learns a lot about himself throught life. Much knowledge and practical know-how, are based on his regular way of living. When life changes significantly, older habits and knowledge become less relevant, which implies a loss whihc is serious at times.
Some will say that changing makes a person younger, and maybe even makes life worthwhile living (why?).
Living vs. feeling good. Some philosophers believe that being alive is more important than feeling good. changing etc. can make a person more alive. I disagree that anything can be more important than feeling good. But the claim is relevant to the question. I am not sure what people think/act in this regard (i.e. feeling goood vs. "being alive").
[1] If you do not like this comment, it is based on more complex stuff not introduced here.
Related posts:
The illusion of suboptimality and irrationality That by looking only at better options, we get the illusion that the current state is suboptimal. We ignore the whole picture whihc contains a lot of much worse options.
Jump to achieve/change That sometimes a change is costly short term, but worth it long term.
Latent potentials That there are various unseen potential in things. You see only the realized. Unrealized potential can come by incidently or intentionaly. the true space of possibilities is much wider than what we see.
WWDNGH 5: Technical optimization and human beings That humans are not optimizing their life technically. We are - for some unknown reasons - not optimization machines.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
WWDNGH 5: Technical optimization and human beings
I am having these points in mind for a long time. I tried to clarify them for myself for no avail. So I am posting the thoughts as they are. If any reader can add an idea/explanation/thought it would be greatly valued.
I suspect that humans are not built for technically optimizing and managing the lives.
I used to ask people why not try to use Gottman method to predict relationship future (he was able to predict marital satisfaction and happiness with 90% accuracy)
Nobody was willing to think about the idea. But people surely discuss with freinds whether to get married, they do other things to decide and think.
Somehow, an optimal method is not being used. Is technical the term? Or because it does not arises to mind and action in a natural way? (quite plausible).
There may be more to that. And the whole idea of technical things is unclear to me.
That is why certain optimizations of life is not being used. You can get happier by doing meditation, but it involves donig something out of the ordinary, mechanical, and unnatural.
No convincing reason either. You got only the technically csounding claim that "practicing meditation is improving happiness significantly". This is a dry and unnatural reason.
Tell a male skeptic that there are pretty girls in the course and he will run on all four. *this* is a natural motivator.
I suspect that humans are not built for technically optimizing and managing the lives.
I used to ask people why not try to use Gottman method to predict relationship future (he was able to predict marital satisfaction and happiness with 90% accuracy)
Nobody was willing to think about the idea. But people surely discuss with freinds whether to get married, they do other things to decide and think.
Somehow, an optimal method is not being used. Is technical the term? Or because it does not arises to mind and action in a natural way? (quite plausible).
There may be more to that. And the whole idea of technical things is unclear to me.
That is why certain optimizations of life is not being used. You can get happier by doing meditation, but it involves donig something out of the ordinary, mechanical, and unnatural.
No convincing reason either. You got only the technically csounding claim that "practicing meditation is improving happiness significantly". This is a dry and unnatural reason.
Tell a male skeptic that there are pretty girls in the course and he will run on all four. *this* is a natural motivator.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
The Nirvana Myth
What do peopel mean when they talk about happiness?
I believe people think about this elusive eternal feeling of endless happiness.
Another approach is the story thing (concept rather than the feeling) [1] like knowing that at the end of life one will be able to say "this was a happy person" like that of Solon and many others (Solon told the king that he cannot be declared happy until his end, which is nonsense, if we look for momentary happiness, or even the story of every moment.)
In practice, we are fairly limited. We can improve many small things in life (so I hope). But these large gains are next to impossible.
When this fantasy takes precedence, one gives up any hope, at least practically.
Sleeping another half hour a day, does not sound an improvement for life. It sounds a small thing, a technicality. Nobosy cares if it will improve life quality. But I guess the main point is that it does not fit into the huge dream of happiness. It is not going to make you a prime minister, give you eternal bliss, or bring you ultimate love (another overstated dream).
PS. I can find rationalization for concentration on the big dreams. And life calculus are too complex to form an opinion. These are just my natural thuoghts. There are also complex topics on our subjective meanings and all kinds of psychologicval constructs. Just mentioning it to confuse you.
[1] story vs. feeling. Kahneman termed it "Living vs. thinking about it". (read the paper, it is provocative, althought I am informed that Kahneman has even more interesting surprises in store) We have an experience, and we have thoughts etc. Humans tend to take thoughts too seriousely. While much of life is about the espeience, not the story.
I believe people think about this elusive eternal feeling of endless happiness.
Another approach is the story thing (concept rather than the feeling) [1] like knowing that at the end of life one will be able to say "this was a happy person" like that of Solon and many others (Solon told the king that he cannot be declared happy until his end, which is nonsense, if we look for momentary happiness, or even the story of every moment.)
In practice, we are fairly limited. We can improve many small things in life (so I hope). But these large gains are next to impossible.
When this fantasy takes precedence, one gives up any hope, at least practically.
Sleeping another half hour a day, does not sound an improvement for life. It sounds a small thing, a technicality. Nobosy cares if it will improve life quality. But I guess the main point is that it does not fit into the huge dream of happiness. It is not going to make you a prime minister, give you eternal bliss, or bring you ultimate love (another overstated dream).
PS. I can find rationalization for concentration on the big dreams. And life calculus are too complex to form an opinion. These are just my natural thuoghts. There are also complex topics on our subjective meanings and all kinds of psychologicval constructs. Just mentioning it to confuse you.
[1] story vs. feeling. Kahneman termed it "Living vs. thinking about it". (read the paper, it is provocative, althought I am informed that Kahneman has even more interesting surprises in store) We have an experience, and we have thoughts etc. Humans tend to take thoughts too seriousely. While much of life is about the espeience, not the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
