Attention! do not read while eating or if you are sensitive otherwise.
it is nice neat and simple to have a single and defined solution to a problem.
Many times, the better solution is of multiple steps and tricks.
Example. haemorhoid. it is a devastating chronical suffering for whoever got it. and there are no simple solutions.
There are varoius single parameter solutions. Like operation etc.
The actualization of the illness goes throught a long chain of steps, each of whom is controllable to a level. The kind of excersions one has (stiff etc.), the way one does his excertion, the level of stress, the kind of chair one uses then, whether one uses additional seat and foot support etc. , what one does when pain sarts (does he stops, or does he ignores the pain, thereby making damage) how one approaches the excertion act psychologically (the more stressful and lack of time the less ability to make it right), Which cleaning paper one uses, the kinds of foods one eats, etc.
one can see that there is so much control on the whole chain. Since the end results is the (nonlinear) product of the whole chain, it is clear that controlling it all to the maximum is probably a very strong and effective way to cure this devastating problem.
This strategy can be a great way to solve otherwise unsolvable problems. It can also be the best way with problems that their one route solution is either constly or not effective.
Why is this approach not used frequently? There are the negatives of the multi step way listed below. But I guess it is because the mind likes better a single solution. We find it hard and confusing to approach the complex bunch of causes. There is a lot of laziness about it. Indeed, handling all steps means getting conscious about them which is an effort. Moreover, one needs than to break out of automaticity about them all. Seeing all parts of the whole so automatic process as malable. Not just seeing, but acting upon this true and strange freedom to play with all our cards at once.
Yet it is astonishingly liberating. Give it a try (but please for a better example/ For improving life rather than for solving problems.........)
PS. the downsides of multiple parameters are there. it is easier to handle one parameter that the whole thing. The cost of tackling every step of the chain may accumulate to too much, and the stress etc. involved can also be costly. Yet many times it is the best strategy, and can even solve otherwise unsolvable problems. The most surprising point is that people avoid this angle so much.
Showing posts with label Managing life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Managing life. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Nozick's experience machine
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Two problems in tricking our psych
Our experience, attention and functioning is affected by endless prameters (examples: expectations, framing, level of experiencing various aspects of a situation, etc.)
There are even more ways to manipulate experience and attention. Many of them quite effective when taken to the extreme. And various manipulations seem to lead into desirable ends.
Why not use all these tricks? (we already use some without thinking of with. But it sounds an open vault to improve life)
1) Management costs. Nothing happens on its own. It takes attention and actions (at least mental actions). We are not always rich in these. Sometimes attention is needed to more stressing needs.
2) Complexities. Every approach in life and the like is related and involved in a wide variety of activities and cognitions. It is not so obvious what other effects and shortages is created by every change of approach.
There are even more ways to manipulate experience and attention. Many of them quite effective when taken to the extreme. And various manipulations seem to lead into desirable ends.
Why not use all these tricks? (we already use some without thinking of with. But it sounds an open vault to improve life)
1) Management costs. Nothing happens on its own. It takes attention and actions (at least mental actions). We are not always rich in these. Sometimes attention is needed to more stressing needs.
2) Complexities. Every approach in life and the like is related and involved in a wide variety of activities and cognitions. It is not so obvious what other effects and shortages is created by every change of approach.
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.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Deciding / acting, and experiencing
decisions, actions, perceptions and the experience of life.
Life has two aspects which differ on many counts.
Decision making, acting.
Experience.
Deciding needs realism. Long terms calculations. Cynicism? (you want to see clearly what will happen on every action - sentimentalism distorts realism). Rationality.
Experience is immediate, folds moment by moment. Irrational. Emotions are important.
One cannot get away avoiding rationality in decision making. You want to get your goals in actual reality. At least for practically important goals (getting your bread, shelter, healing yourself etc.).
So far no problem? We experience life as it is, and we care for our goals. But there are many contradictions.
Attention is a powerful force. When we focus on details of the world that are relevant for actions and for our goals, we may ignore other aspect of life.
Especially for the inner experiental aspects of life.
One comes to a painful trade off. Looking at the realistic technical sides of the world, may help in managing life and attending our goals, but brings a cost in the experience of life. You see the practical you may lose your experience.
It has many other experiental effects.
Deciding "should" essentially go by expected results. Ends are the only thing in mind, and everything else is instrumental. There is no heart to the decider. What is best achieving my goal.
Experience is life. "Life is what happens when we plan other things".
Problem in my view is when the decision making side gets hold on the whole person.
When the mind is full of what is "right" to do. and cares all day long about what and how to do, and so on. Then, the person has no life other than his plans and future prospects. There is no present. There is no experience (aside from the experience of stress.... - ok maybe some minor emotions too)
But not living emotionally one's plans etc. can lead to forgetting them.
I hate thinking about all these needed actions and tradeoffs. But the terrible trade-off is between caring and paying the price of caring, and not caring thereby no doing. There is no decisive claim for either (except in the extremes). But whatever you do you win and lose.
Theoretically, one can have his psych caring with less cost, in various ways. For example: Having a "to care" list but forgetting it and experiencing life without lingering worry. But until one manages to move into this psych state, he has the above trade off.
Realistic understanding of the world is considered by some as "cynical". They are right. Real life is heartless. The processes that make things happen do not have a heart. We have feelings for them. But the underlying process is inhuman. It is there.
Humanism is about feelings we have towards people and things. Realism is about how they operate.
There can be a contradiction of sorts. When you attend to the underlying process, you feel differently towards it.
I had a good friend who was using me emotionally (i.e. without giving back fairly). I am not sure I can easily analyze her actions logically and feel emotionally the same.
Realistically, avoiding analysis leads to being taken advantage of.
A pragmatic thinker (who thinks he can decide whetehr to attend to reality or not...) would say that there is an optimal trade-off point. i.e. attend to reality to some extent but no more (i.e. optimal for happiness or for some other measure)
Another approach is to change glasses. sometimes you entertain reality, for practical purposes. Sometimes you just experience it.
Reconciliation is the most interesting in my view. Not sure how realistic it is. You can see clearly the self interest of your counter-party and still feel he is human and have empathy to him. I think some of it is being approached in meditation traditions. You are supposed to be fully awake to what happens, and still have compassion to others. Even compassion to difficult persons is praised there.
These methods relate to a wiseful kind of thinking that we can plan our lives. We cannot so easily. We may have to accept the idea that we are what we are. And that we generally ought to treat the trade off s they are. i.e. there is a cost. You cannot easily eat the cake and have it.
Example. Music, novels, and movies are fun. The experience is enjoyable for many.
There is a mental cost. These medium promote bad perceptions about love and life. The rehearsal of these stupid things is bound to change your mind in a way that may have a negative effect both on your decisions in life and on your experience.
You get experience and you lose some of the quality of future decisions and experience.
If you are obsessive aobut not having mistakes in your mind, you will avoid all of these. Is the cost worth it? Probably not. Hours and hours of good experience are worth to get somehwat less smart.
There is much to think about this example. But the idea is the point. It is worth to lose some of our "wisdom" to enjoy life. I wise I had the guts to fulheartedly follow this route.
PS.
1) There are aspects of our goals where delusional progress is relevant. Whenever the goals are psychological in nature and the warm glow comes from our thinking we make progress, one may side with delusional progress and goals. But if and when the truth comes out, it can fire back (but not always)
2) Experience is composed of many parts (goal acheivement, involvement, meaning and stories, body, emotions, more).
Some are related to decision making, others to result, and otehrs are stand alone (bodily sensations, moods, ........ )
Some kinds of experience are related to thinking and perceiving. Many of these are ultimately about experience that is independent of the thoughts. When meaningful thoughts lead into a bad mood, we care usually about the bad mood rather than about the meanings themselves. One can theorize and argue more about that. At any rate, much of experience is about experience - the feeling.
PS. Interestiglly people do actually act similarly in self-enhancement. unrealistic self-enhancement is good for well-being and mood, but may harm decisions. It turns out that people actually self-enhance most of the time, but become more realistic when they near a decisions!
Life has two aspects which differ on many counts.
Decision making, acting.
Experience.
Deciding needs realism. Long terms calculations. Cynicism? (you want to see clearly what will happen on every action - sentimentalism distorts realism). Rationality.
Experience is immediate, folds moment by moment. Irrational. Emotions are important.
One cannot get away avoiding rationality in decision making. You want to get your goals in actual reality. At least for practically important goals (getting your bread, shelter, healing yourself etc.).
So far no problem? We experience life as it is, and we care for our goals. But there are many contradictions.
Attention is a powerful force. When we focus on details of the world that are relevant for actions and for our goals, we may ignore other aspect of life.
Especially for the inner experiental aspects of life.
One comes to a painful trade off. Looking at the realistic technical sides of the world, may help in managing life and attending our goals, but brings a cost in the experience of life. You see the practical you may lose your experience.
It has many other experiental effects.
Deciding "should" essentially go by expected results. Ends are the only thing in mind, and everything else is instrumental. There is no heart to the decider. What is best achieving my goal.
Experience is life. "Life is what happens when we plan other things".
Problem in my view is when the decision making side gets hold on the whole person.
When the mind is full of what is "right" to do. and cares all day long about what and how to do, and so on. Then, the person has no life other than his plans and future prospects. There is no present. There is no experience (aside from the experience of stress.... - ok maybe some minor emotions too)
But not living emotionally one's plans etc. can lead to forgetting them.
I hate thinking about all these needed actions and tradeoffs. But the terrible trade-off is between caring and paying the price of caring, and not caring thereby no doing. There is no decisive claim for either (except in the extremes). But whatever you do you win and lose.
Theoretically, one can have his psych caring with less cost, in various ways. For example: Having a "to care" list but forgetting it and experiencing life without lingering worry. But until one manages to move into this psych state, he has the above trade off.
Realistic understanding of the world is considered by some as "cynical". They are right. Real life is heartless. The processes that make things happen do not have a heart. We have feelings for them. But the underlying process is inhuman. It is there.
Humanism is about feelings we have towards people and things. Realism is about how they operate.
There can be a contradiction of sorts. When you attend to the underlying process, you feel differently towards it.
I had a good friend who was using me emotionally (i.e. without giving back fairly). I am not sure I can easily analyze her actions logically and feel emotionally the same.
Realistically, avoiding analysis leads to being taken advantage of.
A pragmatic thinker (who thinks he can decide whetehr to attend to reality or not...) would say that there is an optimal trade-off point. i.e. attend to reality to some extent but no more (i.e. optimal for happiness or for some other measure)
Another approach is to change glasses. sometimes you entertain reality, for practical purposes. Sometimes you just experience it.
Reconciliation is the most interesting in my view. Not sure how realistic it is. You can see clearly the self interest of your counter-party and still feel he is human and have empathy to him. I think some of it is being approached in meditation traditions. You are supposed to be fully awake to what happens, and still have compassion to others. Even compassion to difficult persons is praised there.
These methods relate to a wiseful kind of thinking that we can plan our lives. We cannot so easily. We may have to accept the idea that we are what we are. And that we generally ought to treat the trade off s they are. i.e. there is a cost. You cannot easily eat the cake and have it.
Example. Music, novels, and movies are fun. The experience is enjoyable for many.
There is a mental cost. These medium promote bad perceptions about love and life. The rehearsal of these stupid things is bound to change your mind in a way that may have a negative effect both on your decisions in life and on your experience.
You get experience and you lose some of the quality of future decisions and experience.
If you are obsessive aobut not having mistakes in your mind, you will avoid all of these. Is the cost worth it? Probably not. Hours and hours of good experience are worth to get somehwat less smart.
There is much to think about this example. But the idea is the point. It is worth to lose some of our "wisdom" to enjoy life. I wise I had the guts to fulheartedly follow this route.
PS.
1) There are aspects of our goals where delusional progress is relevant. Whenever the goals are psychological in nature and the warm glow comes from our thinking we make progress, one may side with delusional progress and goals. But if and when the truth comes out, it can fire back (but not always)
2) Experience is composed of many parts (goal acheivement, involvement, meaning and stories, body, emotions, more).
Some are related to decision making, others to result, and otehrs are stand alone (bodily sensations, moods, ........ )
Some kinds of experience are related to thinking and perceiving. Many of these are ultimately about experience that is independent of the thoughts. When meaningful thoughts lead into a bad mood, we care usually about the bad mood rather than about the meanings themselves. One can theorize and argue more about that. At any rate, much of experience is about experience - the feeling.
PS. Interestiglly people do actually act similarly in self-enhancement. unrealistic self-enhancement is good for well-being and mood, but may harm decisions. It turns out that people actually self-enhance most of the time, but become more realistic when they near a decisions!
Monday, April 6, 2009
Laziness can be optimal
If one has the motivation to act only on very good deals.
The optimality stems from not spending energy/time on average stuff.
It assumes very uneven distribution of deals. That one is not lazy when a good deal comes by.
(It also depends on whether resting gives energy or takes. Whether one explores actively or not. and other considerations)
The optimality stems from not spending energy/time on average stuff.
It assumes very uneven distribution of deals. That one is not lazy when a good deal comes by.
(It also depends on whether resting gives energy or takes. Whether one explores actively or not. and other considerations)
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Doing smart things for stupid reasons. The intermedia for doing things.
In A future post.... I showed the idea of ways of action that are best for achieving our goals. I like to name these actions "positive expectation dids". actions which result are expected to be good.
But people do not act just via these simple calculations. They may do the right thing with other constructs of reasoning. These constructs may guide towards desirable ends, but without actors being aware of the actual logic.
Exercising the eyes seems to me a very rational activity. relaxed and strong eyes are a great thing for me. Computer addict. Reader. and with sensitive eyes that pain at times.
I am doing these exercises next to a friend. He stares at me "you are out of your mind. Who is doing these shit?"
I wondered. This guy goes to the gym to inflate his muscles, action with less clear value. How in the world doe she find exercising the eyes strange?
OK. He has culturalized terms of what makes sense and what is normal.
Gym is manly etc. exercising the eyes is inexplicable.
But inflating one's muscles is not really stupid. It helps to get laid. It is rational. Similar to the reason of exercising the eyes.
But the guy does not think with ultimate utility in mind. He thinks with how things look like. Somehow, gym is great. Other strange things with stories attached are ........
Still, his gym time can be rational, even if he does not think clearly the calculations. Even if his line of reasoning has nothing to do with common sense.
Good action can come about via strange routes. This is how humans act and think. reasoning may be less common than we philosophers fantasize.
Implications:
1) It does not always make sense to eradicate stories and customs that do not have inner logical validity. They maybe useful without being inherently true.
2) Seeing people acting correctly, does not show that they know what they are doing.
3) Beware the process.
4) More implications I do not have on my tongue now.
PS. example was a little blown out of proportions. The guy may have made some clever calculation about his gym time. He just may have not understood my strange things. Not understanding my logic, does not imply there was no logic in his actions.
My point is still valid at times. People do things that are good for them, for reasons and thoughts that are only indirectly related to the usefulness logic.
But people do not act just via these simple calculations. They may do the right thing with other constructs of reasoning. These constructs may guide towards desirable ends, but without actors being aware of the actual logic.
Exercising the eyes seems to me a very rational activity. relaxed and strong eyes are a great thing for me. Computer addict. Reader. and with sensitive eyes that pain at times.
I am doing these exercises next to a friend. He stares at me "you are out of your mind. Who is doing these shit?"
I wondered. This guy goes to the gym to inflate his muscles, action with less clear value. How in the world doe she find exercising the eyes strange?
OK. He has culturalized terms of what makes sense and what is normal.
Gym is manly etc. exercising the eyes is inexplicable.
But inflating one's muscles is not really stupid. It helps to get laid. It is rational. Similar to the reason of exercising the eyes.
But the guy does not think with ultimate utility in mind. He thinks with how things look like. Somehow, gym is great. Other strange things with stories attached are ........
Still, his gym time can be rational, even if he does not think clearly the calculations. Even if his line of reasoning has nothing to do with common sense.
Good action can come about via strange routes. This is how humans act and think. reasoning may be less common than we philosophers fantasize.
Implications:
1) It does not always make sense to eradicate stories and customs that do not have inner logical validity. They maybe useful without being inherently true.
2) Seeing people acting correctly, does not show that they know what they are doing.
3) Beware the process.
4) More implications I do not have on my tongue now.
PS. example was a little blown out of proportions. The guy may have made some clever calculation about his gym time. He just may have not understood my strange things. Not understanding my logic, does not imply there was no logic in his actions.
My point is still valid at times. People do things that are good for them, for reasons and thoughts that are only indirectly related to the usefulness logic.
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.
Acting out of weakness
We do things because we are weak.
We sometimes feel that if we would have just more energy and will power we would have done X and Y and Z. This and this and this would have been different.
But many times what we call weakness is in a sense a wisdom of our gut feeling. We may lose because of weakness, but we win many times out of weakness. Being strong willed may mean suffering too much for useless or unrealistic goals. At times, the goals are not worth the trouble. Our smartness says it is. But weakness of will, saves us from being zealous toward the unworthy of effort.
Our "well thought out goals" are many times grudging efforts to acheive goals that are coming not so much from wisdom but form other people's interests, all kinds of psychological constructs and so on. Failing may mean avoiding throwing energy away. [1]
Considering weakness when managing life
Realistically, it does not always matter what would have happened if we would have acted with stronger will. Our weakness and and idiosyncraticas, are there to be taken into consideration.
True, we have some power to change at times. But many times we do not. Even if we can in theory, we may be the kind of person who usually does not exercise such a strong will power.
For regular management of life, it may be wise to take our usual will power into account.
Generally, maanging life out of theoretical possibilities or of our teachers of strong people is not smart. We manage life by our own means and tendencies.
[1] Randolph Nesse claims here that the evolutionary source of depression is either to make us able to sumbit to those stronger of us, or to abandom unfeasible goals.
PS. scholars have shown that having generally more self-regulation ability helps in various domains of life. Self-regulation capacity can actually be increases by exercising in self-regulation. But it does not always work.
These scholastic works, makes me feeling strange about this post. I certainly have my points. But do I give them too much emphasis because I want to believe in these aspects of being weak?
We sometimes feel that if we would have just more energy and will power we would have done X and Y and Z. This and this and this would have been different.
But many times what we call weakness is in a sense a wisdom of our gut feeling. We may lose because of weakness, but we win many times out of weakness. Being strong willed may mean suffering too much for useless or unrealistic goals. At times, the goals are not worth the trouble. Our smartness says it is. But weakness of will, saves us from being zealous toward the unworthy of effort.
Our "well thought out goals" are many times grudging efforts to acheive goals that are coming not so much from wisdom but form other people's interests, all kinds of psychological constructs and so on. Failing may mean avoiding throwing energy away. [1]
Considering weakness when managing life
Realistically, it does not always matter what would have happened if we would have acted with stronger will. Our weakness and and idiosyncraticas, are there to be taken into consideration.
True, we have some power to change at times. But many times we do not. Even if we can in theory, we may be the kind of person who usually does not exercise such a strong will power.
For regular management of life, it may be wise to take our usual will power into account.
Generally, maanging life out of theoretical possibilities or of our teachers of strong people is not smart. We manage life by our own means and tendencies.
[1] Randolph Nesse claims here that the evolutionary source of depression is either to make us able to sumbit to those stronger of us, or to abandom unfeasible goals.
PS. scholars have shown that having generally more self-regulation ability helps in various domains of life. Self-regulation capacity can actually be increases by exercising in self-regulation. But it does not always work.
These scholastic works, makes me feeling strange about this post. I certainly have my points. But do I give them too much emphasis because I want to believe in these aspects of being weak?
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.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
How different are you?
Estimate your variance (i.e. how normal you are)
Most what we know is about averages. General wisodm, as well as modern learned science.
The value of the above depends on the average + your deviation from the average. there is a randmo component in this. But everyone is different in how unusual he is (how much variance to expect). the less usual the person the less vaue of common knowledge, and more on other methods of learning (personal experience, or other forms of educarted guesses. Accepting lack of knowlwdge i.e. acting with knowing that you do not know).
Practicaly, estimate how your are usual of different in various areas.
Correct for bias! Since we tend to see ourselves as more unusual than we really are, you have to adjust your estimate by adding the usual error in this estimate... (on average people thing they are lss average than they really are. We tend to be nomre usual than we subjectively perceive). I wanted to add that some people can somehow guess more realistically. But this would make every reader thinking he is of this kind.
Daniel Gilbert ("Stumbling on Happiness") offers that we should learn from others (from the outside you can perceive emotional results more accurately) and surrogate decisions to others (they are not involved emotionally and biased). He claims - with interesting data - that people are more similar than we subjectively judge.Surrogating decisions and learning from others, builds on the common between people and is not good for differences. The usefulness of it is crucially dependent on how average you are. The less average - the less use you get from studying average folks.
If you are truly far from average, remember:
1) Learn from weired persons. Stories of unusual folks may be much more relevant for your personal life than than average stuff. Either personal - get to know. or via books etc. The weired the better.
2) Tolstoy says that all happy families are happy alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Not to make the weired unhappy, but every weired paerson can be weired in his own way.There are still similarities between many weired people, and between subclasses of them.
Good luck in the fascinating jungle of the weired!
Most what we know is about averages. General wisodm, as well as modern learned science.
The value of the above depends on the average + your deviation from the average. there is a randmo component in this. But everyone is different in how unusual he is (how much variance to expect). the less usual the person the less vaue of common knowledge, and more on other methods of learning (personal experience, or other forms of educarted guesses. Accepting lack of knowlwdge i.e. acting with knowing that you do not know).
Practicaly, estimate how your are usual of different in various areas.
Correct for bias! Since we tend to see ourselves as more unusual than we really are, you have to adjust your estimate by adding the usual error in this estimate... (on average people thing they are lss average than they really are. We tend to be nomre usual than we subjectively perceive). I wanted to add that some people can somehow guess more realistically. But this would make every reader thinking he is of this kind.
Daniel Gilbert ("Stumbling on Happiness") offers that we should learn from others (from the outside you can perceive emotional results more accurately) and surrogate decisions to others (they are not involved emotionally and biased). He claims - with interesting data - that people are more similar than we subjectively judge.Surrogating decisions and learning from others, builds on the common between people and is not good for differences. The usefulness of it is crucially dependent on how average you are. The less average - the less use you get from studying average folks.
If you are truly far from average, remember:
1) Learn from weired persons. Stories of unusual folks may be much more relevant for your personal life than than average stuff. Either personal - get to know. or via books etc. The weired the better.
2) Tolstoy says that all happy families are happy alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Not to make the weired unhappy, but every weired paerson can be weired in his own way.There are still similarities between many weired people, and between subclasses of them.
Good luck in the fascinating jungle of the weired!
Thursday, August 14, 2008
I bought a newspaper
because I got seduced at the grocery store.
On the way, I realized what a mistake it was. I threw it to the garbage before entering my house. It is better to lose the buck I already paid for the paper, than lose a chunk of brain and some time.
Unhealthy food, should be thrown away as soon as you realize that it is negative to eat it. "Do not waste it" is irrational and unethical. The Talmud recognized it two millenia ago, when saying that the prohibition of wasting stuff, is irelevant when the body is the counter party. "The waste of the body is more important".
There has been times when it was crucial to keep food. Nowadays our trouble is the opposite and attitudes should be adjusted accordingly.
On the way, I realized what a mistake it was. I threw it to the garbage before entering my house. It is better to lose the buck I already paid for the paper, than lose a chunk of brain and some time.
Unhealthy food, should be thrown away as soon as you realize that it is negative to eat it. "Do not waste it" is irrational and unethical. The Talmud recognized it two millenia ago, when saying that the prohibition of wasting stuff, is irelevant when the body is the counter party. "The waste of the body is more important".
There has been times when it was crucial to keep food. Nowadays our trouble is the opposite and attitudes should be adjusted accordingly.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Jump to achieve/change
Our options are limited. We try to choose the best one (assume).
But we can create new interesting options.
For me, driving involves so much effort, that having a car is useless. But if I engage in driving for a long time, driving will become automatic. Then having a car may improve my life.
There are endless ways we can have better options by engaging a certain amount of negative/effortful experience.
Those endless possibilities do not occur naturally. They occur only when you forget everything you know about your own
life and experience. Questioning even the smallest basic assumption about how you feel, function, mind working, wants, etc.
Beware, that even with much effort, you will see only a minority of hidden options in your life. The scope of potential
possibilities is never seen fully.
Consider:
1) Over optimism. We expect life to get better after the change becoming natural. We are usually overestimating the
expected improvement. We may not learn the skill/get used to the situation. The very usefulness of the learned stuff can be illusory. Adaptation, that is human's tendency to get used to everything, cancels out various supposedly improvements of life.
2) Gamble. Skewed bets (like lottery, but with maybe positive expectation). Sometimes, the cost is relatively low, but the possible progress is enormous. No big loss if useless. But the change in life can be forever. Other changes to life are long investment, but small improvement for a little while only.
Life is short!
A change starts negatively, where we lose immediately from it. The trick is that sometimes, the later value is large. The farther the positive value, the larger the effort invested, the less worth it seems to be.
Hidden options are endless. It is a complex territory, sometimes worth the trouble.
But we can create new interesting options.
For me, driving involves so much effort, that having a car is useless. But if I engage in driving for a long time, driving will become automatic. Then having a car may improve my life.
There are endless ways we can have better options by engaging a certain amount of negative/effortful experience.
Those endless possibilities do not occur naturally. They occur only when you forget everything you know about your own
life and experience. Questioning even the smallest basic assumption about how you feel, function, mind working, wants, etc.
Beware, that even with much effort, you will see only a minority of hidden options in your life. The scope of potential
possibilities is never seen fully.
Consider:
1) Over optimism. We expect life to get better after the change becoming natural. We are usually overestimating the
expected improvement. We may not learn the skill/get used to the situation. The very usefulness of the learned stuff can be illusory. Adaptation, that is human's tendency to get used to everything, cancels out various supposedly improvements of life.
2) Gamble. Skewed bets (like lottery, but with maybe positive expectation). Sometimes, the cost is relatively low, but the possible progress is enormous. No big loss if useless. But the change in life can be forever. Other changes to life are long investment, but small improvement for a little while only.
Life is short!
A change starts negatively, where we lose immediately from it. The trick is that sometimes, the later value is large. The farther the positive value, the larger the effort invested, the less worth it seems to be.
Hidden options are endless. It is a complex territory, sometimes worth the trouble.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Tricking conflicting wants
Much of trouble we face comes from the fact the many of our wants are confliting with each other [1: examles].
Some of these are unavoidable in a complex reality whihc is not built to fulfill our wants.
Other conflicts are only apparant conflicts. They arise because in the default state of things they are conflicting. But there are ways around.
Finding ways around conflicts (i.e. learning how to eat the cake and have it, too) may hold a big promise to improve lfie quality. I would guess that people just do not explore all space of ways to put things together.
Caveat: I may prove wrong. THnking too much, tricking things, etc., and getting used to eat the cake etc. may prove negative on balance. I hope I am right.
[1: examples] Baumeister holds that over half of self-defeating behavriors are actually trade-offs. Alcohol abuse come from wanting the joy of alcohol but neglecting the consequences. and so on.
There are more examples, whihc I may add later.
Some of these are unavoidable in a complex reality whihc is not built to fulfill our wants.
Other conflicts are only apparant conflicts. They arise because in the default state of things they are conflicting. But there are ways around.
Finding ways around conflicts (i.e. learning how to eat the cake and have it, too) may hold a big promise to improve lfie quality. I would guess that people just do not explore all space of ways to put things together.
Caveat: I may prove wrong. THnking too much, tricking things, etc., and getting used to eat the cake etc. may prove negative on balance. I hope I am right.
[1: examples] Baumeister holds that over half of self-defeating behavriors are actually trade-offs. Alcohol abuse come from wanting the joy of alcohol but neglecting the consequences. and so on.
There are more examples, whihc I may add later.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
A very personal approach about finding a partner
A very personal approach about finding a partner
"personal" because of the sophistication problem. Sophisticated stretegies are very risky and can be a great way to fool oneself to rationalize the most stupid decisions. beaware!
1) "so-so" relationships are mediocore and bad. (see detailed sources for that at the end) I am not looking for these (except for the short-term to manage day to day emotionally)
2) goal = really good relationship.
3) skewed bets strategy. Crucial for finding a mate.
3.1) payoff is skewed. cost of a cheap try is uncomparable to value of finding something good.
3.2) must keep bettting costs low. You are not hanging out for weeks with every possible mate. You make a quick check, maybe an enjoyable date and think whether there is a chance for the really impressive thing. If you get dragged into every bet you cannot accumulate bets. and the betting costs get heeavy on your budget (energy time etc.)
3.3) Be humanistic with the people you gamble about. The innocent girl in the station should not suffer because of your sophisticated gambles. Do not make others suffer in the process. Eventually, you will find the process much more successful and joyful when being considerate.
3.4) "If you look for rare and moving elephants you should always carry a gun" (Beloved Warren Buffet). checking for a rer opportunity involves the mindset of being able to move the wheel 180 degrees and pul the engine fast when an opportunity arises. If you see something with a good probability for a lifetime success you should be able to pursue it strongly at any time with needing ltos of preperation "the right time for dating" etc. etc. You can even do maximum effort to find someone who feels to be a really good bet.
3.5) It is so expected that finding a good match requires lots of checking. Because there is a lot of personal variability tastes and different valuing of different qualities. there are mates who will value your qualities much more than others, and those are the folks you should look for. If you look for getting your "self"s worth.
This try a lot is a strategy that is irrationaly underrated in dating. I know many that could have get good things just by rying enough. So many just do not invest in trying. It is either because they forget about skewness, ignoring a bet that is less than 50% chance. Or because of paying dearly for every gamble, which in exhausting.
4) Looking for the really good thing (aka "no cap strategy") means that it may take a long time to find. It implies one must have short-term solutions/alternatives in terms of emotional social needs and maybe sexuality. If you feel desperate you 1: feel bad, AND 2: you tend to get dragged into mediocre relationships. Must have social network enough to keep "above the water".
Note. 1: all we have in real life here and now is the short-term, so working out short-term solutions is highly important. 2: In western soceities most spent long years without a "serious" mate, so short-term tricks etc. are crucial to have a good life.
So-so relationships are bad. because:
you lose the option of getting a really good relationship.
according to a happiness research that tracked people over many years, the average married person is not much happier than the single in the long run. But there is a subgroup of really happy marriages that make people happy for the really long term. Such kind of marriage you should be looking for, not the one that is hardly better than being single.
Getting stuck in a bad relationship and divorcing is much worse for happiness than what the averegae marriage is making happy. I am not sure it is worthwhile on balance. Moreover, looking at the long term data I realized that the overall expected value of marriage in happiness terms is slightly negative. When one starts a gamble (i.e. a relationship, whihc is always kind of gamble) he shoulod look for positive expected value when all possible eventualities are summed up.
a relationship involves investing quite a bit. I am strongly against investing energy etc. for getting almost the same overally. I am only for good deals. Against all kind of mediocre deals where you are struggling to convince yourself it is worthy.
Additional reading
1) John Gottman made extremely intereting research on relationships. His idea is that somehow there are a few very simple positive dynamics that make good relationships work. He manage to predict with 90% accuracy which couples will remain together 15 years in advance!!!!!, a prediciton that was based on analyzing a 15 minutes chat between the couple.
His stuff is surely worth reading, and using. One may even try to think about his relationships via Gottman glasses, maybe knowing more in advance can help avoid much painful mistakes.
2) The book "Simple Heuristics that make us smart" contains a chapter descussing the optimal rules for mate searching. I have not studied this chapter seriousely, but the book it good, and the idea of a rule of thumb in mate finding is appalling.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The illusion of suboptimality and irrationality
Many times we feel that the world is highly irational and suboptimal (i.e. things can be done is a much better way). This is sometimes the case, but maybe less than as it seems. Our eyes are very misleading about it.
The reason is because the hypothetical reality (that is before any decision has been made) contains a hugte space of possibilities. The decision and actions people take are usually relatively good among the overal space of possibilities.
But the decisions people take may not be the absolute optimum. That is they are not the very best set of decisions. But they are still very good.
After the fact thinking will start off with what decisions already made, and try to look for alternatives based on this optimized decision. Insofar that the decision was not the absolute optimal it will look like there are better decisions and the decision maker was a fool.
Suppose there are a billion possible compositions one can lead to by various combinations of decisions. Suppose further that we sort them throught a single measure. If the actual decision ranked 100th, it should be a great decision, but starting from there one will see that it is the worst out of hundred possibilities.
This mistake has various kinds.:
Ignoring the fact that there were a lot of worse decisions.
Perceiving the "better" decisions as many and forgetting that among the original set of possibilities these super optimal decisions were a tiny unseen minority.
Forgetting possible drawbacks of the super-optimal decisions that just seem irelevant from a current point of view.
Intuitively it feels that there is a deeper side to it. Focusing on theis ex-post space seriousely distorts the whole situation.
The reason is because the hypothetical reality (that is before any decision has been made) contains a hugte space of possibilities. The decision and actions people take are usually relatively good among the overal space of possibilities.
But the decisions people take may not be the absolute optimum. That is they are not the very best set of decisions. But they are still very good.
After the fact thinking will start off with what decisions already made, and try to look for alternatives based on this optimized decision. Insofar that the decision was not the absolute optimal it will look like there are better decisions and the decision maker was a fool.
Suppose there are a billion possible compositions one can lead to by various combinations of decisions. Suppose further that we sort them throught a single measure. If the actual decision ranked 100th, it should be a great decision, but starting from there one will see that it is the worst out of hundred possibilities.
This mistake has various kinds.:
Ignoring the fact that there were a lot of worse decisions.
Perceiving the "better" decisions as many and forgetting that among the original set of possibilities these super optimal decisions were a tiny unseen minority.
Forgetting possible drawbacks of the super-optimal decisions that just seem irelevant from a current point of view.
Intuitively it feels that there is a deeper side to it. Focusing on theis ex-post space seriousely distorts the whole situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
