I think it might make more sense to just believe that Latent Destiny isn’t real.
If dangerous advice is necessary to create heroes, such dangerous advice is good, because we need more heroes, and we are at a point in history where the instrumental value of people dominates the intrinsic.
It seems pretty clearly real to me. (Where “Latent Destiny” is some set of characteristics observable in advance of greatness that are necessary for greatness, and not widely seen outside of great people) Can you expand on why you think it is not real?
Or do you just mean that it’s best to act as if it’s not real? If so, that implies that the optimal decision for people without Latent Destiny is the same as for those with it. Why would that be?
It isn’t clear to me that we’re at a point in history where heroes are unusually needed, so I’m not particularly in favor of prescribing dangerous advice to people in the hopes of producing more heroes.
I think it might make more sense to just believe that Latent Destiny isn’t real.
This seems very dubious.
It seems pretty clearly real to me. (Where “Latent Destiny” is some set of characteristics observable in advance of greatness that are necessary for greatness, and not widely seen outside of great people) Can you expand on why you think it is not real?
Or do you just mean that it’s best to act as if it’s not real? If so, that implies that the optimal decision for people without Latent Destiny is the same as for those with it. Why would that be?
It isn’t clear to me that we’re at a point in history where heroes are unusually needed, so I’m not particularly in favor of prescribing dangerous advice to people in the hopes of producing more heroes.
As for “Latent Destiny,” it seems acquired to me.