I can choose to read the Wikipedia overviews of 1,000,000 different fields, which will allow me to reach the Pareto frontier in this 1,000,000-dimensional graph. However, this isn’t practically useful.
That… actually sounds extremely useful, this is a great idea. The closest analogue I’ve done is read through a college course catalogue from cover to cover, which was extremely useful. Very good way to find lots of unknown unknowns.
To both of you, I say “useful relative to what?” Opportunity cost is the baseline for judging that. Are you excited to read N field overviews over your next best option?
Good points by both of you. I like the idea of discovering unknown unknowns.
I should’ve clarified what I meant by ‘useful’. The broader point I was going for is that you can always become Pareto ‘better’ by arbitrarily choosing to compete along evermore dimensions. As you said, once we define a goal, then we can decide whether competing along one more dimension is better than doing something else or not.
That… actually sounds extremely useful, this is a great idea. The closest analogue I’ve done is read through a college course catalogue from cover to cover, which was extremely useful. Very good way to find lots of unknown unknowns.
To both of you, I say “useful relative to what?” Opportunity cost is the baseline for judging that. Are you excited to read N field overviews over your next best option?
Good points by both of you. I like the idea of discovering unknown unknowns.
I should’ve clarified what I meant by ‘useful’. The broader point I was going for is that you can always become Pareto ‘better’ by arbitrarily choosing to compete along evermore dimensions. As you said, once we define a goal, then we can decide whether competing along one more dimension is better than doing something else or not.