No, I don’t agree. Rergarding yourself as superior to plebs and therefore as above routine is at least weak evidence for narcissism. In combination with absence of clear evidence for the idea that you are in fact superior, it would be strong evidence for narcissism.
Actually, there is no need for any evidence of general superiority. All you need is evidence that the disordered lifestyle works for you—regardless of your brilliance or dimness—and that would be quite sufficient.
Why so? If you assert—as I think you do—that ordered lifestyle helps, that implies that you can get evidence what kind of lifestyle helps and, presumably, the same evidence could point in a different direction.
Because if you’re depressed then your disordered lifestyle is not in fact working for you. Someone for who depression has become the water they swim in might fail to see it that way but depression isn’t the default state of mind for a human being.
Because if you’re depressed then your disordered lifestyle is not in fact working for you.
But isn’t the situation symmetric? I can say “if you’re depressed then your disciplined lifestyle is not in fact working for you” and that would have the same validity.
Yes that would be correct; and I can imagine how this could be the case for somebody like a very high-powered lawyer that wakes up at 4 AM, goes to bed at midnight and shows up to work dressed for success every day; but still feels the whole thing to be hollow and meaningless. Regularity/schedule/discipline may be necessary without being sufficient.
OK, so if the situation is symmetric, why do you believe that disciplined life helps (some) people, but are unwilling to believe that disordered life also helps (some) people?
I’m not unwilling to believe that a disordered life helps some people. I’m saying that, as an individual, each one of us has to be very careful into letting ourselves believe we are one of those people in the absence of strong counter-evidence; because the ( admittedly intuitively assessed on my part ) prior probability of that being the case is not great.
So basically you have a strong prior that disciplined life is considerably more helpful than disorganized one. I assume it’s based on your own experience and the experience of other people in your circle. That’s all fine. What I am doubtful about is how much does that generalize. “Induction” is not a good answer because it’s applicable to absolutely anything.
No, I don’t agree. Rergarding yourself as superior to plebs and therefore as above routine is at least weak evidence for narcissism. In combination with absence of clear evidence for the idea that you are in fact superior, it would be strong evidence for narcissism.
Actually, there is no need for any evidence of general superiority. All you need is evidence that the disordered lifestyle works for you—regardless of your brilliance or dimness—and that would be quite sufficient.
In the types of cases that I was referring to, where irregular lifestyle coincides with depression, that evidence too would be unavailable.
Why so? If you assert—as I think you do—that ordered lifestyle helps, that implies that you can get evidence what kind of lifestyle helps and, presumably, the same evidence could point in a different direction.
Because if you’re depressed then your disordered lifestyle is not in fact working for you. Someone for who depression has become the water they swim in might fail to see it that way but depression isn’t the default state of mind for a human being.
But isn’t the situation symmetric? I can say “if you’re depressed then your disciplined lifestyle is not in fact working for you” and that would have the same validity.
Yes that would be correct; and I can imagine how this could be the case for somebody like a very high-powered lawyer that wakes up at 4 AM, goes to bed at midnight and shows up to work dressed for success every day; but still feels the whole thing to be hollow and meaningless. Regularity/schedule/discipline may be necessary without being sufficient.
OK, so if the situation is symmetric, why do you believe that disciplined life helps (some) people, but are unwilling to believe that disordered life also helps (some) people?
I’m not unwilling to believe that a disordered life helps some people. I’m saying that, as an individual, each one of us has to be very careful into letting ourselves believe we are one of those people in the absence of strong counter-evidence; because the ( admittedly intuitively assessed on my part ) prior probability of that being the case is not great.
So basically you have a strong prior that disciplined life is considerably more helpful than disorganized one. I assume it’s based on your own experience and the experience of other people in your circle. That’s all fine. What I am doubtful about is how much does that generalize. “Induction” is not a good answer because it’s applicable to absolutely anything.
A prior probability is generalized by nature.