Have you seen the new conclusion to the OP? Risk aversion has value to us, but it is a ‘bias’ because is sabotages the achievement of other values. Love has much value to us, but it does not systematically sabotage our other values, so it is a ‘value’.
The labels ‘bias’ and ‘value’ are fuzzy and quantitative.
Love does sabotage my other values. I’ve made career sacrifices for it (which I don’t regret).
Given complexity of value, most valuable things require tradeoffs. The difference between a bias and a value may be quantitative, but unless I know how to calculate it that doesn’t help very much.
Let’s try to avoid sticking a “SOLVED” label on this problem before we’ve properly understood it.
Love does sabotage my other values. I’ve made career sacrifices for it (which I don’t regret).
Right. You do have to sacrifice some resources (time, mental energy, etc) that could be used for other things. All values do that, but some of them sabotage you more than just a reasonable resource cost.
Given complexity of value, most valuable things require tradeoffs. The difference between a bias and a value may be quantitative, but unless I know how to calculate it that doesn’t help very much.
Sure it does. It helps us not be stupid about belief to know that belief is quantitative, likewise with many other things. It gives us the right mental model for thinking about it, even if we can’t do actual calculations. That’s why everyone is always talking about utility functions, even tho no one actually has access to one. Knowing that bias vs value is a spectrum helps us not get too concerned about placing them in hard categories.
Let’s try to avoid sticking a “SOLVED” label on this problem before we’ve properly understood it.
This is a good point. “Solved” is a very serious label.
Right. You do have to sacrifice some resources (time, mental energy, etc) that could be used for other things. All values do that, but some one them sabotage you more than just a reasonable resource cost.
I’m having to guess about the meaning of the second sentence but if I guessed right then I agree that the mode of decision making used by many people when ‘love’ comes into it drastically differs from a mode vaguely representing utility maximising—and often not in a healthy way!
Love often comes packed with some shitty thinking, but it doesn’t seem to lose its value if we think rationally about it.
I wasn’t referring to love as a value that has more than a straightforward resource cost, I was referring to stuff like risk aversion, hindsight bias, anger and such that damage your ability to allocate resources, as opposed to just costing resources.
I wasn’t referring to love as a value that has more than a straightforward resource cost, I was referring to stuff like risk aversion, hindsight bias, anger and such that damage your ability to allocate resources, as opposed to just costing resources.
Have you seen the new conclusion to the OP? Risk aversion has value to us, but it is a ‘bias’ because is sabotages the achievement of other values. Love has much value to us, but it does not systematically sabotage our other values, so it is a ‘value’.
The labels ‘bias’ and ‘value’ are fuzzy and quantitative.
Love does sabotage my other values. I’ve made career sacrifices for it (which I don’t regret).
Given complexity of value, most valuable things require tradeoffs. The difference between a bias and a value may be quantitative, but unless I know how to calculate it that doesn’t help very much.
Let’s try to avoid sticking a “SOLVED” label on this problem before we’ve properly understood it.
Right. You do have to sacrifice some resources (time, mental energy, etc) that could be used for other things. All values do that, but some of them sabotage you more than just a reasonable resource cost.
Sure it does. It helps us not be stupid about belief to know that belief is quantitative, likewise with many other things. It gives us the right mental model for thinking about it, even if we can’t do actual calculations. That’s why everyone is always talking about utility functions, even tho no one actually has access to one. Knowing that bias vs value is a spectrum helps us not get too concerned about placing them in hard categories.
This is a good point. “Solved” is a very serious label.
I’m having to guess about the meaning of the second sentence but if I guessed right then I agree that the mode of decision making used by many people when ‘love’ comes into it drastically differs from a mode vaguely representing utility maximising—and often not in a healthy way!
Sorry, I had a wrong word in that sentence.
Love often comes packed with some shitty thinking, but it doesn’t seem to lose its value if we think rationally about it.
I wasn’t referring to love as a value that has more than a straightforward resource cost, I was referring to stuff like risk aversion, hindsight bias, anger and such that damage your ability to allocate resources, as opposed to just costing resources.
That’s how I took it and I agree.