I would base the justification of my response in regards to the validity of your argument on these terms:
1. In your opening statement, you admit to a false premise in order to grow the size of your audience.
2. In the body of your statement, you make many claims such as ‘some people’ and ‘more people ’, without any concrete example to cite- exactly how many people can or would benefit from doing more?
3. Your argument towards increasing ‘agency’ in others is thinly defined, without clearly stating whether or not this increased agency would also lead to increased happiness or production for the individual or society at large.
4. Your closing statement is an appeal towards personal emotions, and does not contain anything of substance.
5. Finally, your response to critical commentary contains most of these errors as well.
With all this in mind, I cannot personally agree with your argument that human beings should do more instead of less.
I’m very confused about your interpretation of the post. I read the post as saying:
Most people have too high of a risk/reward threshold for action (it has to be the perfect opportunity to act). Having a lower threshold leads to much more rewards. To become that person, install the TAP to notice when a problem shows up now and try to fix it now. Being that type of person increases the chances of finding golden opportunities/ black swans.
But I’ve also installed this habit before (noticing the risks were much smaller in reality than in my head!), so maybe that’s why the purpose/message was clear to me?
My personal standard for LW posts would prefer more specific examples, so that it’s more fun, clear, and vivid in my mind.
What benefits do you think this post would gain if it fit your standard of (1-4) in your comment?
I would base the justification of my response in regards to the validity of your argument on these terms:
1. In your opening statement, you admit to a false premise in order to grow the size of your audience.
2. In the body of your statement, you make many claims such as ‘some people’ and ‘more people ’, without any concrete example to cite- exactly how many people can or would benefit from doing more?
3. Your argument towards increasing ‘agency’ in others is thinly defined, without clearly stating whether or not this increased agency would also lead to increased happiness or production for the individual or society at large.
4. Your closing statement is an appeal towards personal emotions, and does not contain anything of substance.
5. Finally, your response to critical commentary contains most of these errors as well.
With all this in mind, I cannot personally agree with your argument that human beings should do more instead of less.
I’m very confused about your interpretation of the post. I read the post as saying:
But I’ve also installed this habit before (noticing the risks were much smaller in reality than in my head!), so maybe that’s why the purpose/message was clear to me?
My personal standard for LW posts would prefer more specific examples, so that it’s more fun, clear, and vivid in my mind.
What benefits do you think this post would gain if it fit your standard of (1-4) in your comment?