Is it more important to you that people of the future share your values, or that your values are actually fulfilled? Do you want to share your values, so that other (future?) people can make the world better, or are you going to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself? After all, if everyone relies on other people to get work done, nothing will happen. It’s not Pareto efficient.
I think your deathism metaphor is flawed, but in your terms: Why do you assume “living for as long as I want” has a positive utility in my values system? It’s not Pareto efficient to me: if everyone had the option of dying whenever they wanted, it would have consequences that I consider too negative in comparison to the benefits. (Bear in mind that this is a subjective assessment; even if I gave my reasoning you might still disagree, which is fine by me.)
Have the courage and rationality to admit that the loss is real, even if it’s too great for mere human emotions to express.
I’m cowardly, irrational, and shallow, and I’m not afraid to admit it!
Are you sure your intended point wasn’t “values—values about other’s values > values about other’s values”? That point is hard to express neatly but it is a more important intuitive point and one that seems to be well supported by your argument.
(By the way. I was the one who had downvoted your earlier comment, but that was actually in response to “I’m cowardly, irrational, and shallow, and I’m not afraid to admit it!” which doesn’t fit well as a response to that particular exhortation. But I removed the downvote because I decided there was no point being grumpy if I wasn’t going to be grumpy and specific. ;))
Effort required to achieve your goal directly < effort required to convince others to achieve your goal for you.
...and I’ve just spotted the glaring hole in my argument, so the reason that it was unclear is probably that it was wrong.
I assume that people who share your values will act similarly to you. Before, I only considered the possibility that you would work alone (number of people contributing: 1), or that everyone you convinced would do as you did and convince more people (number of people doing work other than marketing: 0). I concluded incorrectly that the best strategy was to work alone; in fact the best strategy is probably a mixed strategy of some sort.
TLDR: I was wrong and you were right. Ignore my previous posts.
(And I’m fine with being downvoted as long I know why. I can make good use of constructive criticism.)
Is it more important to you that people of the future share your values, or that your values are actually fulfilled? Do you want to share your values, so that other (future?) people can make the world better, or are you going to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself? After all, if everyone relies on other people to get work done, nothing will happen. It’s not Pareto efficient.
I think your deathism metaphor is flawed, but in your terms: Why do you assume “living for as long as I want” has a positive utility in my values system? It’s not Pareto efficient to me: if everyone had the option of dying whenever they wanted, it would have consequences that I consider too negative in comparison to the benefits. (Bear in mind that this is a subjective assessment; even if I gave my reasoning you might still disagree, which is fine by me.)
I’m cowardly, irrational, and shallow, and I’m not afraid to admit it!
Doesn’t matter whether you’re afraid to admit it, what matters is what you’re planning to do about it.
Sorry, a failed attempt at sarcasm there.
latter >= former by logical deduction.
Yes. That was my intended point, sorry for being unclear.
Are you sure your intended point wasn’t “values—values about other’s values > values about other’s values”? That point is hard to express neatly but it is a more important intuitive point and one that seems to be well supported by your argument.
(By the way. I was the one who had downvoted your earlier comment, but that was actually in response to “I’m cowardly, irrational, and shallow, and I’m not afraid to admit it!” which doesn’t fit well as a response to that particular exhortation. But I removed the downvote because I decided there was no point being grumpy if I wasn’t going to be grumpy and specific. ;))
Effort required to achieve your goal directly < effort required to convince others to achieve your goal for you.
...and I’ve just spotted the glaring hole in my argument, so the reason that it was unclear is probably that it was wrong. I assume that people who share your values will act similarly to you. Before, I only considered the possibility that you would work alone (number of people contributing: 1), or that everyone you convinced would do as you did and convince more people (number of people doing work other than marketing: 0). I concluded incorrectly that the best strategy was to work alone; in fact the best strategy is probably a mixed strategy of some sort.
TLDR: I was wrong and you were right. Ignore my previous posts.
(And I’m fine with being downvoted as long I know why. I can make good use of constructive criticism.)