″ I wish to make the world a place where “Sunshine and sweating feel awful, so I’m not taking your advice” elicits the same reaction as “Putting my hand on a hot stove feels awful, so I’m not taking your advice” ”
This would be nice. Now when I undertake this rejection challenge and come up with a reason for why I’m are not doing x-action, I can compare that reason to a hardwired physiological reaction. I will then feel satisfied that I am not doing (x-activity) for a good reason that I cannot change, because one surely cannot be expected to put their hand on a hot stove. In this way I will feel satisfied that I am in my current position for a good reason, and can happily fall back into acceptance.
And Alicorn, I don’t know the particular nature of your aversion to sunshine, and maybe it is deeply hardwired like most people’s aversion to a hot stove, so I am not speaking to you in particular. All I am saying is that reasons to not do something come in different strengths and in with different amounts of permanence. There are some dislikes that are able to be overcome through repeated effort, such as talking to strangers or eating vegetables. There are dislikes that can be overcome through mindfulness, (I will start this essay because of how it fits into my long term goals), or through environment (I will start this essay at a quiet Starbucks) or, my personal favorite, through chemical means ( I will start this essay once I finish this bottle of Laphroaig.) Maybe I misread MixedNuts statement and he/she was merely saying that for some people, sunshine and pain aversion are essentially the same, which I could buy. All I’m saying is I think there is a need to iterate this exercise through each of your reasons for not doing activity-x in the hope you can either find fundamental issues (putting your hand on a hot stove) or issues that can be resolved (working out in a walk in refrigerator.)
I think this conversation could use a dose of alternate perspective, and this seems like as good of a spot to drop it as any; zaogao, this is not directed at you personally.
LessWrong as a community makes a point, a lot of the time, of accepting a rather large amount of variance in its members’ values. Except, some of us seem to be better than others at noticing when values-variance is relevant to the conversation at hand. It seems to me that a failure to notice that that’s relevant is the bulk of the problem, here.
Alicorn has made it pretty clear, as far as I can see: Given the choice between a lifestyle in which she sweats regularly, and a lifestyle where she’s less fit and more prone to health problems, she really does prefer the latter—that’s what her values specify. She’s not in denial about it, she’s not complaining about having to make the choice, she’s not making drama. All she’s doing is describing the situation, pointing out the options she knows about, and asking if anyone knows of options that she’s missed. This shouldn’t be a problem, as far as I can tell: Looking for third (or fourth, or fifth) options is a very LessWrong kind of thing to do. But even if we collectively decide that we don’t want to devote resources to this kind of concrete discussion of specific cases, the respectful-of-values-differences thing to do is to say that, not try to shame her for having the values she does.
It might also be worth noting that this kind of thing contributes to LW turning into an echo chamber. If we can’t trust each other to stay respectful and on-topic about values differences that don’t significantly affect anything beyond a single user’s life, how can we trust each other with values differences that do affect other things?
″ I wish to make the world a place where “Sunshine and sweating feel awful, so I’m not taking your advice” elicits the same reaction as “Putting my hand on a hot stove feels awful, so I’m not taking your advice” ”
This would be nice. Now when I undertake this rejection challenge and come up with a reason for why I’m are not doing x-action, I can compare that reason to a hardwired physiological reaction. I will then feel satisfied that I am not doing (x-activity) for a good reason that I cannot change, because one surely cannot be expected to put their hand on a hot stove. In this way I will feel satisfied that I am in my current position for a good reason, and can happily fall back into acceptance.
And Alicorn, I don’t know the particular nature of your aversion to sunshine, and maybe it is deeply hardwired like most people’s aversion to a hot stove, so I am not speaking to you in particular. All I am saying is that reasons to not do something come in different strengths and in with different amounts of permanence. There are some dislikes that are able to be overcome through repeated effort, such as talking to strangers or eating vegetables. There are dislikes that can be overcome through mindfulness, (I will start this essay because of how it fits into my long term goals), or through environment (I will start this essay at a quiet Starbucks) or, my personal favorite, through chemical means ( I will start this essay once I finish this bottle of Laphroaig.) Maybe I misread MixedNuts statement and he/she was merely saying that for some people, sunshine and pain aversion are essentially the same, which I could buy. All I’m saying is I think there is a need to iterate this exercise through each of your reasons for not doing activity-x in the hope you can either find fundamental issues (putting your hand on a hot stove) or issues that can be resolved (working out in a walk in refrigerator.)
I think this conversation could use a dose of alternate perspective, and this seems like as good of a spot to drop it as any; zaogao, this is not directed at you personally.
LessWrong as a community makes a point, a lot of the time, of accepting a rather large amount of variance in its members’ values. Except, some of us seem to be better than others at noticing when values-variance is relevant to the conversation at hand. It seems to me that a failure to notice that that’s relevant is the bulk of the problem, here.
Alicorn has made it pretty clear, as far as I can see: Given the choice between a lifestyle in which she sweats regularly, and a lifestyle where she’s less fit and more prone to health problems, she really does prefer the latter—that’s what her values specify. She’s not in denial about it, she’s not complaining about having to make the choice, she’s not making drama. All she’s doing is describing the situation, pointing out the options she knows about, and asking if anyone knows of options that she’s missed. This shouldn’t be a problem, as far as I can tell: Looking for third (or fourth, or fifth) options is a very LessWrong kind of thing to do. But even if we collectively decide that we don’t want to devote resources to this kind of concrete discussion of specific cases, the respectful-of-values-differences thing to do is to say that, not try to shame her for having the values she does.
It might also be worth noting that this kind of thing contributes to LW turning into an echo chamber. If we can’t trust each other to stay respectful and on-topic about values differences that don’t significantly affect anything beyond a single user’s life, how can we trust each other with values differences that do affect other things?