Thanks for introducing the terms Attractor Theory and Meta-Effects.
How does Attractor Theory compare to Virtue Ethics? On one hand, it seems a lot like a utilitarian adaption of Virtue Ethics. On the other hand, the attractor metaphor seems to focus my attention more on short-term Meta-Effects, while the Virtue Ethics framing seems to focus my attention more on long-term Meta-Effects.
Note: I don’t know much about Virtue Ethics other than the post here.
First off, I think it’s clear that both of them operate on the assumption that things you do will have effects on you, and that this is a key instrumental consideration. And they both do seem to be basically instances of that general principle.
Virtue Ethics seems to work by shifting your self-image. Doing X to become the Sort Of Person Who Does X, such that in future situations, being consistent wins out, is what I think is important here.
Attractor Theory is sort of more about asking yourself, “If I don’t currently “want” to do X, can I put myself in a position to want to do X?”
Mainly, they seem to work on a different level of granularity.
When using Virtue Ethics, it feels like you’re choosing among classes of strategies (EX: “Finishing this project that won’t net me much good is still beneficial in the long run because I view myself more as the type of person who gets things done.”), while Attractor Theory is more about the moment-to-moment shifts + being mindful of how your local preferences change (EX:”I don’t want to do work right now. That’ll probably change if I take a nap, so let’s do that.”).
Thanks for introducing the terms Attractor Theory and Meta-Effects.
How does Attractor Theory compare to Virtue Ethics? On one hand, it seems a lot like a utilitarian adaption of Virtue Ethics. On the other hand, the attractor metaphor seems to focus my attention more on short-term Meta-Effects, while the Virtue Ethics framing seems to focus my attention more on long-term Meta-Effects.
Note: I don’t know much about Virtue Ethics other than the post here.
First off, I think it’s clear that both of them operate on the assumption that things you do will have effects on you, and that this is a key instrumental consideration. And they both do seem to be basically instances of that general principle.
Virtue Ethics seems to work by shifting your self-image. Doing X to become the Sort Of Person Who Does X, such that in future situations, being consistent wins out, is what I think is important here.
Attractor Theory is sort of more about asking yourself, “If I don’t currently “want” to do X, can I put myself in a position to want to do X?”
Mainly, they seem to work on a different level of granularity.
When using Virtue Ethics, it feels like you’re choosing among classes of strategies (EX: “Finishing this project that won’t net me much good is still beneficial in the long run because I view myself more as the type of person who gets things done.”), while Attractor Theory is more about the moment-to-moment shifts + being mindful of how your local preferences change (EX:”I don’t want to do work right now. That’ll probably change if I take a nap, so let’s do that.”).