What if there’s an abundance of specific reasons to take up various activities, and which ones you want to invest in seems to depend heavily on “follow through”, i.e. “are people going to keep working on this”?
abundance of specific reasons to take up various activities [...] “are people going to keep working on this”?
With some transitivity of preference and a world that’s not perpetually chaotically unsettled, people or organizations should be able to find something to work on for which they have no clearly better alternatives. My point is that this is good and worth doing well even when there is no reason to see what they are currently doing as clearly better than the other things they might’ve been doing instead. And if not enough people work on something, it won’t get done, which is OK if there is no reason to prefer it to other things people are actually working on (assuming that neglectedness is not forgotten as a reason to prefer something).
And if not enough people work on something, it won’t get done, which is OK if there is no reason to prefer it to other things people are actually working on
Well, one might prefer that something rather than nothing gets done. In which case it matters whether other people will work on it. In particular, when an organization with multiple people “decides” to do something, that’s tied up with believing that they will work on it, which affects motivation to work on it.
even when there is no reason to see what they are currently doing as a clearly better alternative to the other things they might’ve been doing instead
So, if you believe that you’re doing an “objectively” better plan, in particular you think that other people will recognize that your plan is good, and will want to work on it; so your belief is tied up with acting in a way that will be successful if other people will continue your work.
What if there’s an abundance of specific reasons to take up various activities, and which ones you want to invest in seems to depend heavily on “follow through”, i.e. “are people going to keep working on this”?
With some transitivity of preference and a world that’s not perpetually chaotically unsettled, people or organizations should be able to find something to work on for which they have no clearly better alternatives. My point is that this is good and worth doing well even when there is no reason to see what they are currently doing as clearly better than the other things they might’ve been doing instead. And if not enough people work on something, it won’t get done, which is OK if there is no reason to prefer it to other things people are actually working on (assuming that neglectedness is not forgotten as a reason to prefer something).
Well, one might prefer that something rather than nothing gets done. In which case it matters whether other people will work on it. In particular, when an organization with multiple people “decides” to do something, that’s tied up with believing that they will work on it, which affects motivation to work on it.
So, if you believe that you’re doing an “objectively” better plan, in particular you think that other people will recognize that your plan is good, and will want to work on it; so your belief is tied up with acting in a way that will be successful if other people will continue your work.