K I skimmed that and I think I can speak to us in a re-solving manner. System 1 yes, that is easy to see relates. But system 2, does this involve projection of the future? I don’t think it is necessary, even for complex tasks. I think projection gets in the way of efficiency of the action.
This speaks to goals as well. So I might not prove goals are wrong and bad, but I can suggest that there can be friction such as “Oh no, I’m not achieving my goals” and this friction is “bad”.
Now of course if you are thinking of achievement X (which is a clear projection of a future event btw), then not setting a goal and missing X might seem “bad”.
But how is it, one has claimed they want X, but then they do something else, and somehow still state they wanted X?
I am suggesting wanting X is a fallacy. There is no substance to it, and so setting goals for these arbitrary ends (x )creates a friction with what actually happens.
But I am also suggesting that people that are free from such friction live incredibly efficient existences.
system 2, does this involve projection of the future?
It’s generally taken that both s1 and s2 are good systems and better at some things than others. For example S1 is great at catching baseballs, or fast movements, S2 might be better at working out how to save money (even if this involves teaching S1 how good it feels to “have already saved money” when deciding in S1 whether to spend money right now).
This speaks to goals as well.
I am not sure what “this” you are referring to.
“Oh no, I’m not achieving my goals” and this friction is “bad”.
LW culture is big; you might like to also read some of Nate Soares’ guilt series at minding our way , to make sense of those guilty feelings around should be doing X. I don’t want to keep dumping links on you to read, I am sorry to do that. It’s really good and makes a lot of sense.
not setting a goal and missing X might seem “bad”.
Goal setting—in the sense of setting personal goals is a completely objective experience. There is no subjectivity to “I want icecream now and if I don’t get it that will be bad”. That is that it is still part of the very human battle to do what you want to do.
one has claimed they want X, but then they do something else, and somehow still state they wanted X?
You might appreciate revealed preferences, from Paul Samuelson—an offshoot of Keynesian economics, I started writing about it here but I would like to rewrite it soon.
wanting X is a fallacy
I think you might be looking for a different word in the place of “fallacy” but that’s okay.
There is no substance to it
If you mean to say there is no subjectivity to it, then yes, there is only personal objective opinion on whether that goal-thing is relevant or valid to you.
creates a friction with what actually happens.
I am excited by this idea because it relates to my recent post about the time that you have or choosing to align your actions and thereby your “revealed preferences” to your stated goals in life. I think you are hitting on the same idea. But these things are notoriously hard to communicate.
Yes its related. But I come from a wildly different perspective in which you are unknowingly making assumptions that I don’t subscribe too.
What does it mean to you, if instead of creating goals that might (likely) be desires that are eventually contradicted as such by our actions, we create goals that are inline with our actions?
So we change our desires to match our actions rather than our actions to match our desires.
The link was broken, and I don’t mind them, I expected it, and I think they are useful, I certainly skim them and re-read them if I don’t feel I got the point.
wildly different perspective in which you are unknowingly making assumptions
Most of my assumptions are hopefully presented as guesses. I don’t really know, feel free to correct me.
What does it mean to you
Which “it” are you referring to now? Can you be more specific?
if instead of creating goals that might (likely) be desires that are eventually contradicted as such by our actions, we create goals that are inline with our actions?
Revealed preferences work in two directions. On the one hand you can discover your revealed preferences and let that inform your future judgements and future actions. On the other hand you can make your revealed preferences show that they line up with your goal.
take stock of what you are doing and align it with your desired goals.
K I skimmed that and I think I can speak to us in a re-solving manner. System 1 yes, that is easy to see relates. But system 2, does this involve projection of the future? I don’t think it is necessary, even for complex tasks. I think projection gets in the way of efficiency of the action.
This speaks to goals as well. So I might not prove goals are wrong and bad, but I can suggest that there can be friction such as “Oh no, I’m not achieving my goals” and this friction is “bad”.
Now of course if you are thinking of achievement X (which is a clear projection of a future event btw), then not setting a goal and missing X might seem “bad”.
But how is it, one has claimed they want X, but then they do something else, and somehow still state they wanted X?
I am suggesting wanting X is a fallacy. There is no substance to it, and so setting goals for these arbitrary ends (x )creates a friction with what actually happens.
But I am also suggesting that people that are free from such friction live incredibly efficient existences.
I am not sure what you mean by this.
It’s generally taken that both s1 and s2 are good systems and better at some things than others. For example S1 is great at catching baseballs, or fast movements, S2 might be better at working out how to save money (even if this involves teaching S1 how good it feels to “have already saved money” when deciding in S1 whether to spend money right now).
I am not sure what “this” you are referring to.
LW culture is big; you might like to also read some of Nate Soares’ guilt series at minding our way , to make sense of those guilty feelings around should be doing X. I don’t want to keep dumping links on you to read, I am sorry to do that. It’s really good and makes a lot of sense.
Goal setting—in the sense of setting personal goals is a completely objective experience. There is no subjectivity to “I want icecream now and if I don’t get it that will be bad”. That is that it is still part of the very human battle to do what you want to do.
You might appreciate revealed preferences, from Paul Samuelson—an offshoot of Keynesian economics, I started writing about it here but I would like to rewrite it soon.
I think you might be looking for a different word in the place of “fallacy” but that’s okay.
If you mean to say there is no subjectivity to it, then yes, there is only personal objective opinion on whether that goal-thing is relevant or valid to you.
I am excited by this idea because it relates to my recent post about the time that you have or choosing to align your actions and thereby your “revealed preferences” to your stated goals in life. I think you are hitting on the same idea. But these things are notoriously hard to communicate.
Yes its related. But I come from a wildly different perspective in which you are unknowingly making assumptions that I don’t subscribe too.
What does it mean to you, if instead of creating goals that might (likely) be desires that are eventually contradicted as such by our actions, we create goals that are inline with our actions?
So we change our desires to match our actions rather than our actions to match our desires.
The link was broken, and I don’t mind them, I expected it, and I think they are useful, I certainly skim them and re-read them if I don’t feel I got the point.
Most of my assumptions are hopefully presented as guesses. I don’t really know, feel free to correct me.
Which “it” are you referring to now? Can you be more specific?
I said in this post
Does this work: http://mindingourway.com/guilt/