P(Accomplish goals given get really rich) > P (Accomplish goals given ~get really rich)
vs.
P[(Accomplish goals given try to get really rich & (get really rich or ~get really rich)] ?>=<? P(Accomplish goals given ~try to get really rich)
My symbols kind of suck in this format, but you seem to be arguing the former when the latter is the relevant consideration. It also ignores the goal of personal happiness; I would guess that most people in practice have very high coefficients for themselves and loved ones in their utility functions, regardless of what they profess to believe.
Oh, and the whole claim about not valuing social status enough and, in particular, not valuing sex with extremely attractive women is, well, unsupported, to put it extremely charitably. Unless people here have the goals of “showing people up” or “having sex with extremely attractive women whose interest in them is contingent on their wealth,” adapting those values would not be conducive to accomplishing their current goals, so failing to adapt them is hardly an error.
More to the point, saying that people aren’t pursuing wealth and claiming the specific cause of this is a lack of valuing social status is like saying people aren’t buying a Mercedes because they don’t adequately value an all-leather interior. There are many other values that would attain the ends, and there are many other ends that would fulfill the values. I’d go into this at length, but the post did explicitly condone trolling, so I won’t take this too seriously.
This is not to say that you’re wrong (about wealth being a rational goal for meeting our existing goals); I don’t have the numbers to shut up and multiply. I’m just saying you may well not be right.
What kind of numbers do you think you would need to shut up and multiply? No trolling, just an honest question. To clarify, I support Roko here—I’ve been thinking along the same lines for some time.
You’d need to know the goals in question. Then you’d need to know how much great wealth would benefit these goals. Then the odds of becoming wealthy. Then the benefits if you try to get wealthy but fail. Then you’d need to compare that to the benefits of just doing what you’re doing. It’s not really quantifiable enough to fit into the shut-up-and-multiply, especially since it varies based on goals and individuals.
But this isn’t really elaborate justification. It breaks down into:
-I’m more likely to accomplish my goals by doing what I’m doing than by doing what you propose.
Could be true. Could be false. Extremely sensitive to values of “my goals” and “doing what I’m doing.” Theoretically testable/evaluable. Not really dismissible as “elaborate justification,” even if it is possible to elaborate on the specifics in greater detail.
Your current proposition amounts to little more than provocative name-calling. “Alpha” qualities may or may not be more conducive to wealth than available alternatives. Pursuing wealth may or may not be more conducive to accomplishing a specific set of goals than the available alternatives. Ditto for social
I do accept the proposition that there are people who, if they have a goal (like having scientific discoveries achieved) would be better off maximizing their earnings and then being extremely charitable. Whether it applies to people who post on this site, I don’t have enough information to say. They may be really good at the relevant research. They may be really bad at making money. I don’t know. I doubt any other poster here does, either.
I certainly fail to see how this relates to a desire to sleep with attractive, shallow women. I don’t even see how the alpha/beta “dichotomy” fits in to this argument, unless your basic point is “You [pejoratives] should get off your asses and become investment bankers or something,” which is actually a fairly testable (or at least, evaluable) claim. Also, there are plenty of “weak beta males” who are still quite wealthy. If you’re going off of Roissy, as the terminology indicates, alpha and beta are more about personality and sexual prowess than they are about ability to accumulate wealth. And Roissy’s “dichotomy” has some serious, serious normative problems; I was debating making a top-level post about the problems with that style of thought, so thanks for convincing me to do so.
It must be different to live in a world where nobody else is allowed to score a point without rendering themselves vulnerable to your juvenile insults. What will you call me, I wonder, since “weak beta male” won’t work? Will the insult depend in some way on my gender, to be truly symmetrical? Will “whiny” work its way in?
P(Accomplish goals given get really rich) > P (Accomplish goals given ~get really rich)
vs.
P[(Accomplish goals given try to get really rich & (get really rich or ~get really rich)] ?>=<? P(Accomplish goals given ~try to get really rich)
My symbols kind of suck in this format, but you seem to be arguing the former when the latter is the relevant consideration. It also ignores the goal of personal happiness; I would guess that most people in practice have very high coefficients for themselves and loved ones in their utility functions, regardless of what they profess to believe.
Oh, and the whole claim about not valuing social status enough and, in particular, not valuing sex with extremely attractive women is, well, unsupported, to put it extremely charitably. Unless people here have the goals of “showing people up” or “having sex with extremely attractive women whose interest in them is contingent on their wealth,” adapting those values would not be conducive to accomplishing their current goals, so failing to adapt them is hardly an error.
More to the point, saying that people aren’t pursuing wealth and claiming the specific cause of this is a lack of valuing social status is like saying people aren’t buying a Mercedes because they don’t adequately value an all-leather interior. There are many other values that would attain the ends, and there are many other ends that would fulfill the values. I’d go into this at length, but the post did explicitly condone trolling, so I won’t take this too seriously.
This is not to say that you’re wrong (about wealth being a rational goal for meeting our existing goals); I don’t have the numbers to shut up and multiply. I’m just saying you may well not be right.
What kind of numbers do you think you would need to shut up and multiply? No trolling, just an honest question. To clarify, I support Roko here—I’ve been thinking along the same lines for some time.
You’d need to know the goals in question. Then you’d need to know how much great wealth would benefit these goals. Then the odds of becoming wealthy. Then the benefits if you try to get wealthy but fail. Then you’d need to compare that to the benefits of just doing what you’re doing. It’s not really quantifiable enough to fit into the shut-up-and-multiply, especially since it varies based on goals and individuals.
And is he putting any effort into getting the numbers?
Elaborate intellectual justifications …
Fully General Counterargument.
Aha! yet more Elaborate intellectual justifications from the weak beta males...
But this isn’t really elaborate justification. It breaks down into:
-I’m more likely to accomplish my goals by doing what I’m doing than by doing what you propose.
Could be true. Could be false. Extremely sensitive to values of “my goals” and “doing what I’m doing.” Theoretically testable/evaluable. Not really dismissible as “elaborate justification,” even if it is possible to elaborate on the specifics in greater detail.
Your current proposition amounts to little more than provocative name-calling. “Alpha” qualities may or may not be more conducive to wealth than available alternatives. Pursuing wealth may or may not be more conducive to accomplishing a specific set of goals than the available alternatives. Ditto for social
I do accept the proposition that there are people who, if they have a goal (like having scientific discoveries achieved) would be better off maximizing their earnings and then being extremely charitable. Whether it applies to people who post on this site, I don’t have enough information to say. They may be really good at the relevant research. They may be really bad at making money. I don’t know. I doubt any other poster here does, either.
I certainly fail to see how this relates to a desire to sleep with attractive, shallow women. I don’t even see how the alpha/beta “dichotomy” fits in to this argument, unless your basic point is “You [pejoratives] should get off your asses and become investment bankers or something,” which is actually a fairly testable (or at least, evaluable) claim. Also, there are plenty of “weak beta males” who are still quite wealthy. If you’re going off of Roissy, as the terminology indicates, alpha and beta are more about personality and sexual prowess than they are about ability to accumulate wealth. And Roissy’s “dichotomy” has some serious, serious normative problems; I was debating making a top-level post about the problems with that style of thought, so thanks for convincing me to do so.
Ok, I was playing up to the trolling persona here. It was funny. Yes, you have a legitimate argument.
It must be different to live in a world where nobody else is allowed to score a point without rendering themselves vulnerable to your juvenile insults. What will you call me, I wonder, since “weak beta male” won’t work? Will the insult depend in some way on my gender, to be truly symmetrical? Will “whiny” work its way in?
Um, do you realise what site you’re on?