You should pick the thing where you are the most above average in expected success, because that’s where the marginal gain to the world from you doing it is highest.
You’re assuming perfect equivalence between success and value creation. That is a very shaky assumption in any realistic human society. Success may stem from creating value and trading it, but also from winning zero- or negative-sum games such as signaling arms races and rent seeking contests, and even the created value can be offset by the negative externalities you generate. Humans are amazingly capable of rationalizing away such unpleasant observations when it comes to themselves and people they like and admire, as well as exaggerating them when it comes to those they dislike, so evaluating any concrete success scenario accurately is a very difficult problem.
(Of course, if you’re altruistic, you’d also care about your positive externalities for which you capture no benefit, and similar caveats apply there too.)
By “success” I meant successfully doing useful research/getting money to charity/spreading rationality. Which I think is closer to “value creation” or “positive externalities” than what you seem to be calling “success,” namely personal welfare.
All I meant was that if he would create an above average amount of value in one area, but even more in another, relative to the rest of the labor pool, he should go with the one where he’s best by comparison.
By “success” I meant successfully doing useful research/getting money to charity/spreading rationality. Which I think is closer to “value creation” or “positive externalities” than what you seem to be calling “success,” namely personal welfare.
Actually, I didn’t mean only personal welfare. What I wrote certainly applies to career success that brings money and power, but also to all other kinds of accomplishments that are commonly seen as worthy and admirable.
In fact, often it’s even more difficult to judge the latter accurately. People are used to arguing whether someone who profits from success has deserved it, and they’re normally willing to listen to someone who argues either way in some particular case. However, when it comes to accomplishments that are seen as selfless idealism, it’s much more difficult to criticize those without being perceived as weird or malicious. This despite the fact that these can be about signaling games, rent-seeking, and unaccounted externalities just as much as any for-profit endeavor, no matter how admirable and high-status they are commonly perceived.
You’re assuming perfect equivalence between success and value creation. That is a very shaky assumption in any realistic human society. Success may stem from creating value and trading it, but also from winning zero- or negative-sum games such as signaling arms races and rent seeking contests, and even the created value can be offset by the negative externalities you generate. Humans are amazingly capable of rationalizing away such unpleasant observations when it comes to themselves and people they like and admire, as well as exaggerating them when it comes to those they dislike, so evaluating any concrete success scenario accurately is a very difficult problem.
(Of course, if you’re altruistic, you’d also care about your positive externalities for which you capture no benefit, and similar caveats apply there too.)
By “success” I meant successfully doing useful research/getting money to charity/spreading rationality. Which I think is closer to “value creation” or “positive externalities” than what you seem to be calling “success,” namely personal welfare.
All I meant was that if he would create an above average amount of value in one area, but even more in another, relative to the rest of the labor pool, he should go with the one where he’s best by comparison.
Actually, I didn’t mean only personal welfare. What I wrote certainly applies to career success that brings money and power, but also to all other kinds of accomplishments that are commonly seen as worthy and admirable.
In fact, often it’s even more difficult to judge the latter accurately. People are used to arguing whether someone who profits from success has deserved it, and they’re normally willing to listen to someone who argues either way in some particular case. However, when it comes to accomplishments that are seen as selfless idealism, it’s much more difficult to criticize those without being perceived as weird or malicious. This despite the fact that these can be about signaling games, rent-seeking, and unaccounted externalities just as much as any for-profit endeavor, no matter how admirable and high-status they are commonly perceived.
Agreed.
If anything, it seems like he’s trying to create positive externalities, not make his personal life as good as possible.