Yes, but I think the expected value of correctly guessing where you want to live is higher than the value from this effect.
But I think you’re just rationalizing. Compare this comment of yours to the earlier one. Are they really talking about the same thing? Are either of them responsive to Gwern?
Compare this comment of yours to the earlier one. Are they really talking about the same thing?
I meant something like “if you think you might live in an A-speaking country you should learn A, but even if you think you might live abroad but you’re not sure where, it’s better to learn some language A than no foreign language at all, because even if you end up living in a B-speaking country, learning B as an adult who has never learnt an additional language before will be harder than if you had already learnt a foreign language A when younger.”
Are either of them responsive to Gwern?
Gwern’s point is that learning a language other than English is expensive and useless, and I’m pointing out cases when it’s not useless (and, in the great-grandparent, that I want to do something expensive just for the hell of it it’s my own business—going to the cinema once a week would also be expensive and useless, for example). Or am I missing something?
Gwern didn’t use the word “useless.” If it’s useless, the magnitude of expense is irrelevant. The important thing is to compare costs to benefits. Listing benefits without quantifying them doesn’t contribute to this. Incidentally, the particular benefit you mentioned was in the original post.
Yes, but I think the expected value of correctly guessing where you want to live is higher than the value from this effect.
But I think you’re just rationalizing. Compare this comment of yours to the earlier one. Are they really talking about the same thing? Are either of them responsive to Gwern?
I meant something like “if you think you might live in an A-speaking country you should learn A, but even if you think you might live abroad but you’re not sure where, it’s better to learn some language A than no foreign language at all, because even if you end up living in a B-speaking country, learning B as an adult who has never learnt an additional language before will be harder than if you had already learnt a foreign language A when younger.”
Gwern’s point is that learning a language other than English is expensive and useless, and I’m pointing out cases when it’s not useless (and, in the great-grandparent, that I want to do something expensive just for the hell of it it’s my own business—going to the cinema once a week would also be expensive and useless, for example). Or am I missing something?
Gwern didn’t use the word “useless.” If it’s useless, the magnitude of expense is irrelevant. The important thing is to compare costs to benefits. Listing benefits without quantifying them doesn’t contribute to this. Incidentally, the particular benefit you mentioned was in the original post.
Not necessarily: there are such things as terminal values. The utility function is not up for grabs.