How can I tell what should be moderated versus what should be taken more-or-less to an extreme?
Also, is rationality something I should think about moderating? Should I be concerned about not having enough spiritualism in my life and missing beneficial aspects of that?
Tentative plan: look for things I strongly value or identify with, and find my best arguments against them.
This also reminds me of something I read but can’t find about problems arising from “broken alarms” in self inspection, such as a person being quiet and withdrawn because they fear that they’re loud and annoying.
Tentative plan: look for things I strongly value or identify with, and find my best arguments against them.
Can they be tested against reality?
Also, is rationality something I should think about moderating?
In the same fashion:
is it working in a way that gets the best returns? Can it be improved?
What is its return?
(I have seen arguments about optimizing, to the tune of, the improvements of productivity research should exceed the costs (and this depends on how long you expect to live), though I haven’t seen stuff on: how much groups should invest, or more work trying to network people/ideas/practices, so that the costs are reduced and the benefits are increased.) Relevant xkcd. (Though its answer on how long should you spend making a routine more efficient, is based on how much time you gain by doing so. It’s also meant as a maximum, a breakeven. It doesn’t take into account the group approach I mentioned.) Advice about this might take the form of ‘go for the low hanging fruit’.
Should I be concerned about not having enough spiritualism in my life and missing beneficial aspects of that?
I don’t actually know what the returns, or beneficial aspects, are.
For both, there might be arguments that, if that’s what you want, then go for practices. (Meditation may have risks.)
Thank you for making my floundering into something actionable... I’ll first try looking into what people have found before on this thinking. I find it surprisingly difficult to see what my outgroups are or what advice I should be thinking of reversing.
Inspired by the SSC post on reversing advice:
How can I tell what should be moderated versus what should be taken more-or-less to an extreme?
Also, is rationality something I should think about moderating? Should I be concerned about not having enough spiritualism in my life and missing beneficial aspects of that?
Tentative plan: look for things I strongly value or identify with, and find my best arguments against them.
This also reminds me of something I read but can’t find about problems arising from “broken alarms” in self inspection, such as a person being quiet and withdrawn because they fear that they’re loud and annoying.
Can they be tested against reality?
In the same fashion:
is it working in a way that gets the best returns? Can it be improved?
What is its return?
(I have seen arguments about optimizing, to the tune of, the improvements of productivity research should exceed the costs (and this depends on how long you expect to live), though I haven’t seen stuff on: how much groups should invest, or more work trying to network people/ideas/practices, so that the costs are reduced and the benefits are increased.) Relevant xkcd. (Though its answer on how long should you spend making a routine more efficient, is based on how much time you gain by doing so. It’s also meant as a maximum, a breakeven. It doesn’t take into account the group approach I mentioned.) Advice about this might take the form of ‘go for the low hanging fruit’.
I don’t actually know what the returns, or beneficial aspects, are.
For both, there might be arguments that, if that’s what you want, then go for practices. (Meditation may have risks.)
Thank you for making my floundering into something actionable...
I’ll first try looking into what people have found before on this thinking. I find it surprisingly difficult to see what my outgroups are or what advice I should be thinking of reversing.