The really interesting thing here is that for once your head is doing something rational—deciding not to do a task that is not worthwhile to do (factoring into account the decreasing-over-time ability to predict future rewards) - using a fairly good equation as far as you can see—and you’re trying to fight that.
We really are weird creatures.
(Not that procrastination is always rational. Often it is not. But in those cases I find it very easy not to procrastinate)
Seconded. The text describing the method just assumes that one should respond to low Value or low Expectancy by fighting to raise these. But around half the time (in my experience), it’s the “devil” on your shoulder whispering how pointless the task is, who actually has the right idea.
In Luke’s examples, sometimes a low Value or low Expectancy judgment is accepted. It looks like Luke listens to the “devil” about as often as I do. Good—now modify the description of the method accordingly.
Of course, another problem (and that’s a huge one) is that our head does not really care much about our goals. The wicked organ will happily do anything that benefits our genes, even if it leaves us completely miserable.
Actually, the wicked organ often does things harmful for both our goals and genes, based on heuristics for an ancient environment that no longer exists.
Or I am just too stupid to see how exactly does not living healthy, not expanding my social skills, and not making lot of money contribute to survival of my genes.
The “lot of money” is biologically unnecessary unless you are in third world, the healthier living is splitting hairs as far as reproduction is concerned. The ‘there is a room for improving social skills as an adult’ issue is circa when-we-stopped-having-big-families (and stopped getting experience as children), i.e. very novel. Our current notion of ‘social skills’ revolves around being able to smoothly talk with strangers, which was entirely unnecessary (living in small tribes) until very very recently. What was important in small tribes, is being nice and avoiding escalating confrontations, perhaps by not talking at all when you’re not sure if it makes the other person mad. Not banging other people’s wives, either. Picture evolving as a member of crew of spaceship (tribe in frozen land), with crew of 20 where anyone initiates first contacts as a little child, and where you have to stick together for generations. Here you go, shyness.
The lack of any effort to reproduce is more interesting though. We just lack that particular goal. Sex, a bit of a goal, reproduction, not at all.
A bunch of people say they want to be parents and go to great lengths to do so. That might be cultural—any culture where people don’t dies by contraception.
Well, yea. Passed-down culture can substitute for the instincts quite well (provided that it is taken up without questioning)
Passed-laterally culture is different, everyone is trying to talk anyone who’s not a direct descendant into non-reproducing, for quite good reasons too.
I wouldn’t want to live in the biologically sensible world, though—in which an animal as intelligent as human would perhaps have their drive to reproduce (not to be confused with sex drive) be as strong as fear of death, with the obvious outcome—extreme overpopulation followed by the population crash.
One problem with this equation is that it dooms us to use hyperbolic discounting (which is dynamically inconsistent), not exponential discounting, which would be rational (given rationally calibrated coefficients).
Well, the heuristic has to encompass the decreasing ability to predict the future for larger times, which needs not be exponential if the risks do not stay constant.
The really interesting thing here is that for once your head is doing something rational—deciding not to do a task that is not worthwhile to do (factoring into account the decreasing-over-time ability to predict future rewards) - using a fairly good equation as far as you can see—and you’re trying to fight that.
We really are weird creatures.
(Not that procrastination is always rational. Often it is not. But in those cases I find it very easy not to procrastinate)
Seconded. The text describing the method just assumes that one should respond to low Value or low Expectancy by fighting to raise these. But around half the time (in my experience), it’s the “devil” on your shoulder whispering how pointless the task is, who actually has the right idea.
In Luke’s examples, sometimes a low Value or low Expectancy judgment is accepted. It looks like Luke listens to the “devil” about as often as I do. Good—now modify the description of the method accordingly.
Of course, another problem (and that’s a huge one) is that our head does not really care much about our goals. The wicked organ will happily do anything that benefits our genes, even if it leaves us completely miserable.
Actually, the wicked organ often does things harmful for both our goals and genes, based on heuristics for an ancient environment that no longer exists.
Or I am just too stupid to see how exactly does not living healthy, not expanding my social skills, and not making lot of money contribute to survival of my genes.
The “lot of money” is biologically unnecessary unless you are in third world, the healthier living is splitting hairs as far as reproduction is concerned. The ‘there is a room for improving social skills as an adult’ issue is circa when-we-stopped-having-big-families (and stopped getting experience as children), i.e. very novel. Our current notion of ‘social skills’ revolves around being able to smoothly talk with strangers, which was entirely unnecessary (living in small tribes) until very very recently. What was important in small tribes, is being nice and avoiding escalating confrontations, perhaps by not talking at all when you’re not sure if it makes the other person mad. Not banging other people’s wives, either. Picture evolving as a member of crew of spaceship (tribe in frozen land), with crew of 20 where anyone initiates first contacts as a little child, and where you have to stick together for generations. Here you go, shyness.
The lack of any effort to reproduce is more interesting though. We just lack that particular goal. Sex, a bit of a goal, reproduction, not at all.
A bunch of people say they want to be parents and go to great lengths to do so. That might be cultural—any culture where people don’t dies by contraception.
Well, yea. Passed-down culture can substitute for the instincts quite well (provided that it is taken up without questioning)
Passed-laterally culture is different, everyone is trying to talk anyone who’s not a direct descendant into non-reproducing, for quite good reasons too.
I wouldn’t want to live in the biologically sensible world, though—in which an animal as intelligent as human would perhaps have their drive to reproduce (not to be confused with sex drive) be as strong as fear of death, with the obvious outcome—extreme overpopulation followed by the population crash.
One problem with this equation is that it dooms us to use hyperbolic discounting (which is dynamically inconsistent), not exponential discounting, which would be rational (given rationally calibrated coefficients).
Well, the heuristic has to encompass the decreasing ability to predict the future for larger times, which needs not be exponential if the risks do not stay constant.