If you really want to be a music star, but you hate making music, you are in trouble. If after realizing this you still really want to be a music star, consider finding ways to modify your preferences concerning music creation.
Mixing up your goal hierarchy is the path to the dark side.
We’re born with mixed up goal hierarchies. I’m merely pointing out that untangling your goal hierarchies can require changing your goals, and that some goals can be best achieved by driving towards something else.
If you really want to be a music star, but you hate making music, you are in trouble. If after realizing this you still really want to be a music star, consider finding ways to modify your preferences concerning music creation.
Ok, let’s distinguish between your preferences as abstract ordering over lotteries over possible worlds, and preferences as physical facts about how you feel about something.
It is a bad idea to change the former for instrumental reasons. The latter are simply physical facts that you should change to be whatever the former thinks would be useful.
I would agree completely, if humans were perfect rationalists in full control of their minds. In my (admittedly narrow) experience, people who have the creation of art / attainment of knowledge as a terminal goal usually create better art / attain more knowledge than people who have similar instrumental goals.
I am indeed suggesting that the best way to achieve your current terminal goals may be to change your preference ordering over lotteries over possible worlds. If you are a young college student worried about the poor economy, and all you really want is a job, you should consider finding a passion.
Now, you could say that such people don’t really have “get a job” as a terminal goal, that what they actually want is stability or something. But that’s precisely my point: humans aren’t perfect rationalists. Sometimes they have stupid end-games. (Think of all the people who just want to get rich.)
If you find yourself holding a terminal goal that should have been instrumental, you’d better change your terminal goals.
I am indeed suggesting that the best way to achieve your current terminal goals may be to change your preference ordering over lotteries over possible worlds. If you are a young college student worried about the poor economy, and all you really want is a job, you should consider finding a passion.
Ok. I disagree. I tried to separate what you want in the abstract form the physical fact of what this piece of meat you are sending into the future “wants” but then you went and re-conflated them. I’m tapping out.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think we disagree. In your terminology, my point is that people don’t start with clearly separated “abstract wants” and “meat wants”, and often have them conflated without realizing it. I hope we can both agree that if you find yourself thus confused, it’s a good idea to adjust your abstract wants, no matter how many people refer to such actions as a “path to the dark side”.
(Alternatively, I can understand rejecting the claim that abstract-wants and meat-wants can be conflated. In that case we do disagree, for it seems to me that many people truly believe and act as if “getting rich” is a terminal goal.)
I disagree. It seems to me that people who have music creation as a terminal goal are more likely to create good music than people who have music creation as an instrumental goal. Humans are not perfect rationalists, and human motivation is a fickle beast. If you want to be a music star, and you have control over your terminal goals, I strongly suggest adopting a terminal goal of creating good music.
I suggest that you abandon the word ‘terminal’ and simply speak of goals. You are using the word incorrectly and so undermining whatever other point you may have had.
Thanks. Looks like I was using the word as I intended to.
My point is that humans (who are imperfect decision makers and not in full control of their motivational systems) may actually benefit from changing their terminal goals, even though perfectly rational agents with consistent utility functions never would want to.
Humans are not always consistent, and making yourself consistent can involve dropping or acquiring terminal goals. (Consider a converted slaveowner acquiring a terminal goal of improving quality of life for all humans.)
My original point stems from two observations: Firstly, that many people seem to have lost purposes where their terminal goals should be. Secondly, that some humans may find it difficult to “trick” their goal system.
You may find it easier to achieve “future me is a music star” by sending a version of yourself with different terminal goals (wanting to make music) into the future, as opposed to sending a version of you who makes music for fame’s sake. (The assumption here is that the music you make in the former case is better, and that you don’t have access to it in the latter case, because humans find it difficult to trick their goal system.)
This is somewhat related to purchasing warm fuzzies. There are some things you cannot achieve by willpower alone. In order to achieve your current terminal goals, you may need to change your terminal goals.
I realize that this is a potentially uncomfortable conclusion, but I reject wedrifid’s claim that I was misusing the word.
Perhaps I did not adequately get my point across.
If you really want to be a music star, but you hate making music, you are in trouble. If after realizing this you still really want to be a music star, consider finding ways to modify your preferences concerning music creation.
We’re born with mixed up goal hierarchies. I’m merely pointing out that untangling your goal hierarchies can require changing your goals, and that some goals can be best achieved by driving towards something else.
Ok, let’s distinguish between your preferences as abstract ordering over lotteries over possible worlds, and preferences as physical facts about how you feel about something.
It is a bad idea to change the former for instrumental reasons. The latter are simply physical facts that you should change to be whatever the former thinks would be useful.
That probably clears up the confusion.
I would agree completely, if humans were perfect rationalists in full control of their minds. In my (admittedly narrow) experience, people who have the creation of art / attainment of knowledge as a terminal goal usually create better art / attain more knowledge than people who have similar instrumental goals.
I am indeed suggesting that the best way to achieve your current terminal goals may be to change your preference ordering over lotteries over possible worlds. If you are a young college student worried about the poor economy, and all you really want is a job, you should consider finding a passion.
Now, you could say that such people don’t really have “get a job” as a terminal goal, that what they actually want is stability or something. But that’s precisely my point: humans aren’t perfect rationalists. Sometimes they have stupid end-games. (Think of all the people who just want to get rich.)
If you find yourself holding a terminal goal that should have been instrumental, you’d better change your terminal goals.
Ok. I disagree. I tried to separate what you want in the abstract form the physical fact of what this piece of meat you are sending into the future “wants” but then you went and re-conflated them. I’m tapping out.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think we disagree. In your terminology, my point is that people don’t start with clearly separated “abstract wants” and “meat wants”, and often have them conflated without realizing it. I hope we can both agree that if you find yourself thus confused, it’s a good idea to adjust your abstract wants, no matter how many people refer to such actions as a “path to the dark side”.
(Alternatively, I can understand rejecting the claim that abstract-wants and meat-wants can be conflated. In that case we do disagree, for it seems to me that many people truly believe and act as if “getting rich” is a terminal goal.)
You used the phrase ‘terminal goals’. This describes adopting an instrumental goal. Nyan’s criticism applies.
I disagree. It seems to me that people who have music creation as a terminal goal are more likely to create good music than people who have music creation as an instrumental goal. Humans are not perfect rationalists, and human motivation is a fickle beast. If you want to be a music star, and you have control over your terminal goals, I strongly suggest adopting a terminal goal of creating good music.
I suggest that you abandon the word ‘terminal’ and simply speak of goals. You are using the word incorrectly and so undermining whatever other point you may have had.
What do you think the word “terminal” means in this context, and what do you think I think it means?
Edit: Seriously, I’m not being facetious. I think I am using the word correctly, and if I’m not, I’d like to know. The downvotes tell me little.
In local parlance, “terminal” values are a decision maker’s ultimate values, the things they consider ends in themselves.
A decision maker should never want to change their terminal values.
For example, if a being has “wanting to be a music star” as a terminal value, than it should adopt “wanting to make music” as an instrumental value.
For humans, how these values feel psychologically is a different question from whether they are terminal or not.
See here for more information
Thanks. Looks like I was using the word as I intended to.
My point is that humans (who are imperfect decision makers and not in full control of their motivational systems) may actually benefit from changing their terminal goals, even though perfectly rational agents with consistent utility functions never would want to.
Humans are not always consistent, and making yourself consistent can involve dropping or acquiring terminal goals. (Consider a converted slaveowner acquiring a terminal goal of improving quality of life for all humans.)
My original point stems from two observations: Firstly, that many people seem to have lost purposes where their terminal goals should be. Secondly, that some humans may find it difficult to “trick” their goal system.
You may find it easier to achieve “future me is a music star” by sending a version of yourself with different terminal goals (wanting to make music) into the future, as opposed to sending a version of you who makes music for fame’s sake. (The assumption here is that the music you make in the former case is better, and that you don’t have access to it in the latter case, because humans find it difficult to trick their goal system.)
This is somewhat related to purchasing warm fuzzies. There are some things you cannot achieve by willpower alone. In order to achieve your current terminal goals, you may need to change your terminal goals.
I realize that this is a potentially uncomfortable conclusion, but I reject wedrifid’s claim that I was misusing the word.