All of the above is true. And this post is explicitly written for the people who have bought into “the world needs saving” and are angsty about it because they don’t want to perform a “hero” role but feel like they should. I’m sure there are thousands of people all around me living simple lives of devotion to their families, partners, and communities. (This includes many of my fellow nurses.) They don’t need telling that this is okay. In fact, I think that in larger society, this might be an overall bad message for me personally to send, because it’s possible that in society at large women are dissuaded harder from being CEOs than from being executive assistants (or whatever dichotomy) and sending that message an extra time, even if it’s well-written and nuanced, would just sum up to “see, honey, another smart-sounding lady says your place in the world is as the CEO’s assistant!” (The message would have a different impact if I were male, but I’m not and I can’t do that hypothetical.)
But I’m posting this on Less Wrong, where the worldview of “the world is broken and my ethics dictate I try to fix it” is a pretty common mindset. It’s something I’ve bought into, to a degree. I’m talking to the people who already believe that heroes exist. (Maybe they ought not to.) I’d like those people not to have to feel distressed about this.
Can a bond which is essentially based off of someone’s propensity to succeed at what they are doing in life really grow to be unconditional? What if Frodo suddenly gets a debilitating disease and can’t be a Frodo anymore?
No. If I were helping someone accomplish an important project, and they became debilitated, I’d find another Frodo. (After I’d made sure my first Frodo was going to at least be comfortable and not miserable.) It’d be hard. Loyalty runs deep in me. I don’t know if this is a necessary fact about a Samwise character, or if it’s just happened to be true of all the people I’ve talked to so far. But the ethics I have now that dictate that being a nurse for forty years is not the thing I can do with the largest positive expected impact on the world, would also dictate the same thing about being my former Frodo’s home-care nurse. Brienne has been pretty explicit that if she’s working with a hero, and finds out that they’re wrong about a fundamental thing and thus that she could make more impact on her own, she would do it, even though it would be a personal tragedy.
In terms of the romance aspect… I have no idea. It doesn’t feel necessary. It feels like there are lots of real-life examples of a dynamic that would be satisfying and feel right to me and aren’t romantic–a CEO’s executive assistant isn’t normally their romantic partner. Nursing has many of the same aspects, and makes me deeply happy, and there’s nothing to do with romance there. Maybe if you’re going to be working with a single person, romance is convenient; time spent with your partner is also time spent on your important project, you don’t have to budget them separately. (This sounds potentially unhealthy/hard on the relationship aspect, so I don’t know.)
I’m talking to the people who already believe that heroes exist. (Maybe they ought not to.) I’d like those people not to have to feel distressed about this.
Why should not being distressed be a terminal goal?
Surely what you really want is that they not feel distressed if it’s a good idea, but that they do feel distressed if it’s a bad idea. You don’t want them to be not-distressed unconditionally regardless of whether the idea is good or bad.
Which means that in order to decide whether they should feel distressed about doing something, you first need to decide whether it’s a good idea. You don’t want to just be feeding their delusions, if you conclude that they are delusions.
All of the above is true. And this post is explicitly written for the people who have bought into “the world needs saving” and are angsty about it because they don’t want to perform a “hero” role but feel like they should. I’m sure there are thousands of people all around me living simple lives of devotion to their families, partners, and communities. (This includes many of my fellow nurses.) They don’t need telling that this is okay. In fact, I think that in larger society, this might be an overall bad message for me personally to send, because it’s possible that in society at large women are dissuaded harder from being CEOs than from being executive assistants (or whatever dichotomy) and sending that message an extra time, even if it’s well-written and nuanced, would just sum up to “see, honey, another smart-sounding lady says your place in the world is as the CEO’s assistant!” (The message would have a different impact if I were male, but I’m not and I can’t do that hypothetical.)
But I’m posting this on Less Wrong, where the worldview of “the world is broken and my ethics dictate I try to fix it” is a pretty common mindset. It’s something I’ve bought into, to a degree. I’m talking to the people who already believe that heroes exist. (Maybe they ought not to.) I’d like those people not to have to feel distressed about this.
No. If I were helping someone accomplish an important project, and they became debilitated, I’d find another Frodo. (After I’d made sure my first Frodo was going to at least be comfortable and not miserable.) It’d be hard. Loyalty runs deep in me. I don’t know if this is a necessary fact about a Samwise character, or if it’s just happened to be true of all the people I’ve talked to so far. But the ethics I have now that dictate that being a nurse for forty years is not the thing I can do with the largest positive expected impact on the world, would also dictate the same thing about being my former Frodo’s home-care nurse. Brienne has been pretty explicit that if she’s working with a hero, and finds out that they’re wrong about a fundamental thing and thus that she could make more impact on her own, she would do it, even though it would be a personal tragedy.
In terms of the romance aspect… I have no idea. It doesn’t feel necessary. It feels like there are lots of real-life examples of a dynamic that would be satisfying and feel right to me and aren’t romantic–a CEO’s executive assistant isn’t normally their romantic partner. Nursing has many of the same aspects, and makes me deeply happy, and there’s nothing to do with romance there. Maybe if you’re going to be working with a single person, romance is convenient; time spent with your partner is also time spent on your important project, you don’t have to budget them separately. (This sounds potentially unhealthy/hard on the relationship aspect, so I don’t know.)
Why should not being distressed be a terminal goal?
Surely what you really want is that they not feel distressed if it’s a good idea, but that they do feel distressed if it’s a bad idea. You don’t want them to be not-distressed unconditionally regardless of whether the idea is good or bad.
Which means that in order to decide whether they should feel distressed about doing something, you first need to decide whether it’s a good idea. You don’t want to just be feeding their delusions, if you conclude that they are delusions.