dealing with real life

[Erin Minter]

Q: How can I refute the argument that kids need to learn how to deal with real life?

A: Does "dealing with real life" mean putting up with stuff you don't like? Learning this very pervasive idea sets ppl up to learn how to accept bad situations, feel somewhat hopeless to change anything, not be optimistic that problems can be solved, and basically just grit their teeth. Real life doesn't have to suck. It really doesn't.

There's a better way! "Dealing with real life" can mean solving problems and feeling confident in one's ability to do that. It's a very different attitude and it makes a huge difference.

Life can be actually be really awesome and fun and invigorating! Yes, problems still arise (they always will, that's the fun part), but it can mean *solving* problems, rather than feeling hopeless and stuck in the face of them as you basically just put up with stuff you don't like.

But this attitude doesn't just happen after years and years of basically being told that you need to learn to put with bad stuff you don't like and just accept it cuz you need to learn to "deal with real life".

Rather, it's learned after years and years of helping children *solve* their RIGHT NOW problems which are part of real life! childhood is also real life. Children are real people who have real problems that matter. I think setting kids up (and helping them) to solve problems and feel confident in their ability to do so is the best way to learn how to "deal with real life”.

Erin

[Justin Mallone]

On May 29, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Erin Minter erinm...@icloud.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Q: How can I refute the argument that kids need to learn how to deal with real life?
>
> A: Does "dealing with real life" mean putting up with stuff you don't like? Learning this very pervasive idea sets ppl up to learn how to accept bad situations, feel somewhat hopeless to change anything, not be optimistic that problems can be solved, and basically just grit their teeth. Real life doesn't have to suck. It really doesn't.

Yeah. When parents talk about “real life” and what it requires, they’re typically making huge (false) assertions about reality which contradict e.g. Ayn Rand’s ideas, along with well known counter examples.

They’re basically saying to kid “the path to success in life consists of following a conventional path, and being bored lots. And learning involves suffering. And the irrationality of other people is omnipotent and can only be dealt with by appeasement and compromise.”

And kid might ask “What about Steve Jobs?”

And parent might say “STFU and go do your homework. You’re not him.”

And then kid might ask “How do you know? What if the only reason I won’t become as good as him is because of your life-long efforts to break my spirit succeeding?”

And then the parent hits the kid.

> There's a better way! "Dealing with real life" can mean solving problems and feeling confident in one's ability to do that. It's a very different attitude and it makes a huge difference.
>
> Life can be actually be really awesome and fun and invigorating! Yes, problems still arise (they always will, that's the fun part), but it can mean *solving* problems, rather than feeling hopeless and stuck in the face of them as you basically just put up with stuff you don't like.
>
> But this attitude doesn't just happen after years and years of basically being told that you need to learn to put with bad stuff you don't like and just accept it cuz you need to learn to "deal with real life".
>
> Rather, it's learned after years and years of helping children *solve* their RIGHT NOW problems which are part of real life! childhood is also real life. Children are real people who have real problems that matter. I think setting kids up (and helping them) to solve problems and feel confident in their ability to do so is the best way to learn how to "deal with real life”.

People think children are vaguely below full human mind status and so the idea that their problems can be real ones seems dubious to them.

People romanticize childhood “innocence” by which they mean something like the time in life when you could just play and do what you wanted and not have to deal with the burden and responsibility of having a career and a spouse and a mortgage — and also not have to deal with understanding the evil and unjust nature of the world we live in (or something like that.)

-JM

[Erin Minter]

On May 29, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 29, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Erin Minter erinm...@icloud.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Q: How can I refute the argument that kids need to learn how to deal with real life?
>>
>> A: Does "dealing with real life" mean putting up with stuff you don't like? Learning this very pervasive idea sets ppl up to learn how to accept bad situations, feel somewhat hopeless to change anything, not be optimistic that problems can be solved, and basically just grit their teeth. Real life doesn't have to suck. It really doesn't.
>
> Yeah. When parents talk about “real life” and what it requires, they’re typically making huge (false) assertions about reality which contradict e.g. Ayn Rand’s ideas, along with well known counter examples.
>
> They’re basically saying to kid “the path to success in life consists of following a conventional path, and being bored lots. And learning involves suffering. And the irrationality of other people is omnipotent and can only be dealt with by appeasement and compromise.”
>
> And kid might ask “What about Steve Jobs?”
>
> And parent might say “STFU and go do your homework. You’re not him.”
>
> And then kid might ask “How do you know? What if the only reason I won’t become as good as him is because of your life-long efforts to break my spirit succeeding?”
>
> And then the parent hits the kid.
>
>> There's a better way! "Dealing with real life" can mean solving problems and feeling confident in one's ability to do that. It's a very different attitude and it makes a huge difference.
>>
>> Life can be actually be really awesome and fun and invigorating! Yes, problems still arise (they always will, that's the fun part), but it can mean *solving* problems, rather than feeling hopeless and stuck in the face of them as you basically just put up with stuff you don't like.
>>
>> But this attitude doesn't just happen after years and years of basically being told that you need to learn to put with bad stuff you don't like and just accept it cuz you need to learn to "deal with real life".
>>
>> Rather, it's learned after years and years of helping children *solve* their RIGHT NOW problems which are part of real life! childhood is also real life. Children are real people who have real problems that matter. I think setting kids up (and helping them) to solve problems and feel confident in their ability to do so is the best way to learn how to "deal with real life”.
>
> People think children are vaguely below full human mind status and so the idea that their problems can be real ones seems dubious to them.

It’s almost like the parent’s problems *for the child* are considered important and need to be taken seriously (e.g. reaching certain milestones on time, getting good grades in school, being appropriately social).

But the child’s problems *for himself* are minimized as silly, childish and unimportant. Parents rationalize kids not getting the help to solve their problems by saying stuff like “Oh, he’ll get over it.” or “He’ll adjust. It’s no big deal.” or “You can’t always get what you want.” or “Ha, ha. Look how cute he looks when trying to figure that toy out."

> People romanticize childhood “innocence” by which they mean something like the time in life when you could just play and do what you wanted

Sort of a tangent - Maybe many parents use the idea that kids can just do what they want / have it easy / relax and play in order to strategically rationalize the parent’s action when they hurt them.

They are like “There’s no problem with forcing him to do chores; look how easy he’s got it.” or “I don’t want to help you do X this time; you already get to do sooooo much of what you want.”

> and not have to deal with the burden and responsibility of having a career and a spouse and a mortgage

And even here - maybe they use it again as a way to strategically rationalize their actions of trying “teach” the kid some responsibility.

So it’s like “You need to start being responsible for doing the dishes; And I don’t want to hear any whining. You have no idea what REAL responsibility is, which as the parent *I* have to deal with. So yea, a little responsibility won’t hurt you."

And ya, parents are rly good at getting kids to *hate* responsibility and see it as a burden. and consequently, avoid it as much as possible.

Erin

[Elliot Temple]

On May 29, 2015, at 6:36 AM, Erin Minter <erinm...@icloud.com> wrote:

> Q: How can I refute the argument that kids need to learn how to deal with real life?

Howard Roark didn't “deal with real life” in the usual sense.

I think Ayn Rand didn’t either. I don’t.

It’s achievable to have a life in which one doesn't "deal with real life”. And it’s better that way. I recommend it.


There was a David Deutsch (I think) post, long ago, which was memorable to me. I only remember the idea clearly, not the details, but it went something like this:

poster: i don’t wanna spoil my child. if i give him stuff he wants, he’ll form unrealistic expectations about getting stuff he wants in life. he’ll never deal with real life.

DD: say you do stuff for your child, give him stuff, etc. and he expects life to work that way. and you keep doing it. then he’ll be right, his life will in fact work that way.

(end summary)

of course, people can also learn to get lots of stuff they want themselves, later on. that’s fine. in any case, wanting stuff and getting it can continue, it doesn’t have to be unrealistic. one can go through all of life that way.

parents do such stupid shit like make a child pick which toy he wants between two, when he wants both. if you’re good at adult life – or even a fairly subpar American – that isn’t realistic. if i want two toys (e.g. two of the real money tanks in world of tanks) i can just buy both. lots of people can do stuff like that. one doesn’t have to be rich to do that, it’s not that hard. you can work at mcdonalds and buy two tanks. but people will like try to train kids to live a deprived life cuz basically the parent prefers to spend more money on himself and very little on stuff the kid wants (people spend a lot on their kids in total, but it’s mostly on necessities like food, and on things the parent wants the kid to have like educational stuff, not on in-app purchases for computer games).

there is a pretty common general trend where the older people are, the more money they have, but less free time and/or energy. and older people will regret not spending more money on stuff when they were younger. when younger, they’ll give up 100 points of value to save $50. when they’re old, they’ll spend $200 for 25 points of value, b/c they don’t expect to get more value out of that money before they die. (they will have opportunities to spend money at a better conversion rate, but only a limited amount of those. they will buy all of those and still have some time and money left over and have to do some less money-efficient activities).

and it’s not that hard to be like top 10% successful. if your parents destroy your mind only 80% as much as the typical amount, that should do it.

if you look at the people playing any popular online computer game, there are tons of really really terrible and stupid players. and being in the top 10% of players is easy for most games.

yeah yeah, i’m good at stuff, you say. but i’m saying objectively it’s just not that hard. if you’re a TCS parent, a smart person, and you have much success, your kid can easily be top 10%. that isn’t some like unobtainable rare thing. if you get anywhere with TCS stuff you’ll get there. you have to suck at life quite badly to be in the bottom 90%. i do a hell of a lot better than top 10% at stuff, you aren’t competing with me to get there.

it’s like, you maybe shouldn’t base your life plan on being top 0.01% at stuff, but it’s completely reasonable to expect to be top 10% and plan accordingly. you don’t have to plan your life so it’ll still work well if you’re 30th percentile. that’s actually kinda pointless since no 30th percentile life works well anyway, and 30th percentile people don’t get their planning right anyway.

the point is, don’t fuck your kid over to try to prepare him just in case he’s terrible at life at has a 30th percentile outcome. aim at least mildly high. do stuff so that if life goes sorta decently well (e.g. 90th percentile), there won’t be these huge regrets. like an example regret would be learning to be rather poor and then ending up with a comfortable amount of money – then you’d look back and be like “well that was pointless and awful”. and like trying to prepare a kid for a bad life really sets him up worse for having a good life, it helps CAUSE him to end up much worse off, it has a big self-fulfilling prophecy element.

tell your kid life isn’t suffering, and demonstrate by helping him as best you can. then he’ll learn more about how to live a non-suffering later. whereas if you’re like “life is full of pain, so practice feeling pain” you’re 1) hurting him now 2) not teaching or demonstrating techniques to make life have less or no pain

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
www.curi.us

[PAS]

> On May 30, 2015, at 12:23 AM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> it’s like, you maybe shouldn’t base your life plan on being top 0.01% at stuff, but it’s completely reasonable to expect to be top 10% and plan accordingly. you don’t have to plan your life so it’ll still work well if you’re 30th percentile. that’s actually kinda pointless since no 30th percentile life works well anyway, and 30th percentile people don’t get their planning right anyway.

What is important to be top 10% at life?

Top 10% of income?

Top 10% of getting your preferences met?

Top 10% of creating useful new knowledge?

Something else?

PàS

[Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum]

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:51 AM, PAS <p...@paipas.com> wrote:

>> On May 30, 2015, at 12:23 AM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>
>> it’s like, you maybe shouldn’t base your life plan on being top 0.01% at stuff, but it’s completely reasonable to expect to be top 10% and plan accordingly. you don’t have to plan your life so it’ll still work well if you’re 30th percentile. that’s actually kinda pointless since no 30th percentile life works well anyway, and 30th percentile people don’t get their planning right anyway.
>
> What is important to be top 10% at life?

To be clear, Elliot said "completely reasonable to expect to be top
10%", not "important to be".

> Top 10% of income?

It's completely reasonable to expect to be in the top 10% of income.
One way is to learn to program. According to
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-your-income-percentile-ranking.html
various other sites, approximately $90,000 of before-tax income was
enough to put an individual in the top 10% in 2013. The nationwide
median for software software developers is about $90,000, according to
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm.
The average full-time programmer is not that good. It's completely
reasonable to expect to be as good as the average software developer
and be paid accordingly, especially when you take freelancing options
into account.

> Top 10% of getting your preferences met?

Why not? Take romantic preferences for example. By learning the basics
of generally-available pickup knowledge, it's completely reasonable
for a guy to be in the top 10% here.

> Top 10% of creating useful new knowledge?

Again, why not?

> Something else?

Whatever is important to you. I think part of Elliot's point was that
most people suck so badly that it doesn't require an enormous amount
of effort to be in the top 10% of any aspect of life that you care
about.

[Erin Minter]

ya, maybe something like creating knowledge / avoiding TCS-coercion / solving problems / using your MIND / making progress on whatever you choose to make progress on.

Erin

[PAS]

On May 30, 2015, at 12:35 PM, 'Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum' petrogradp...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:51 AM, PAS <p...@paipas.com> wrote:
>
>>> On May 30, 2015, at 12:23 AM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

I missed fixing the Apple mail quote bug - trying to dash off a quick post and forgot.

>>>
>>> it’s like, you maybe shouldn’t base your life plan on being top 0.01% at stuff, but it’s completely reasonable to expect to be top 10% and plan accordingly. you don’t have to plan your life so it’ll still work well if you’re 30th percentile. that’s actually kinda pointless since no 30th percentile life works well anyway, and 30th percentile people don’t get their planning right anyway.
>>
>> What is important to be top 10% at life?
>
> To be clear, Elliot said "completely reasonable to expect to be top
> 10%", not "important to be”.

If you set your life up expecting to be top 10% in some way, isn’t important to actually do it? Wouldn’t life suck if you set it up for a top 10% income and then you find you prefer only doing what it takes for the 30th percentile?

Doesn’t this actually happen frequently with professionals like e.g. doctors, who take on a lot of debt in med school expecting to earn a high income practicing medicine, but then find they hate practicing medicine and wanna do something else that pays a lot less?

>
>> Top 10% of income?
>
> It's completely reasonable to expect to be in the top 10% of income.
> One way is to learn to program. According to
> http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-your-income-percentile-ranking.html
> various other sites, approximately $90,000 of before-tax income was
> enough to put an individual in the top 10% in 2013. The nationwide
> median for software software developers is about $90,000, according to
> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm.
> The average full-time programmer is not that good. It's completely
> reasonable to expect to be as good as the average software developer
> and be paid accordingly, especially when you take freelancing options
> into account.

What if you don’t like programming, or don’t like programming for pay (or, for sake of discussion, the technology industry in general)? Still reasonable to expect to be in top 10% of income?

>
>> Top 10% of getting your preferences met?
>
> Why not? Take romantic preferences for example. By learning the basics
> of generally-available pickup knowledge, it's completely reasonable
> for a guy to be in the top 10% here.
>
>> Top 10% of creating useful new knowledge?
>
> Again, why not?
>
>> Something else?
>
> Whatever is important to you. I think part of Elliot's point was that
> most people suck so badly that it doesn't require an enormous amount
> of effort to be in the top 10% of any aspect of life that you care
> about.

The thrust of my question was: What aspects of life is it important to care about being in the top 10% of? Income? Knowledge? Getting preferences met? What other stuff?

PàS

[Elliot Temple]

On May 30, 2015, at 6:39 PM, PAS <p...@paipas.com> wrote:

> On May 30, 2015, at 12:35 PM, 'Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum' petrogradp...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:51 AM, PAS <p...@paipas.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 30, 2015, at 12:23 AM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
> I missed fixing the Apple mail quote bug - trying to dash off a quick post and forgot.
>
>>>>
>>>> it’s like, you maybe shouldn’t base your life plan on being top 0.01% at stuff, but it’s completely reasonable to expect to be top 10% and plan accordingly. you don’t have to plan your life so it’ll still work well if you’re 30th percentile. that’s actually kinda pointless since no 30th percentile life works well anyway, and 30th percentile people don’t get their planning right anyway.
>>>
>>> What is important to be top 10% at life?
>>
>> To be clear, Elliot said "completely reasonable to expect to be top
>> 10%", not "important to be”.
>
> If you set your life up expecting to be top 10% in some way, isn’t important to actually do it? Wouldn’t life suck if you set it up for a top 10% income and then you find you prefer only doing what it takes for the 30th percentile?

No. Bottom 90%ers don’t have well organized, well designed lives anyway. Getting that right is a higher tier skill.

So if you are in the bottom 90%, and you have a mismatch between your expectations for your life setup, and your actual life ... that’s just normal, not notable.

> Doesn’t this actually happen frequently with professionals like e.g. doctors, who take on a lot of debt in med school expecting to earn a high income practicing medicine, but then find they hate practicing medicine and wanna do something else that pays a lot less?

their problem is irrationality

and don’t they commonly take on debt, and try to be doctors (despite not liking doctoring), because they lack confidence in their ability to get through life well following a path they think about themselves. isn’t it because they aren’t top 10%, or worry they aren’t, and they are being really conservative to try to minimize downside, NOT set things up for a good life with high upside.

>>> Top 10% of income?
>>
>> It's completely reasonable to expect to be in the top 10% of income.
>> One way is to learn to program. According to
>> http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-your-income-percentile-ranking.html
>> various other sites, approximately $90,000 of before-tax income was
>> enough to put an individual in the top 10% in 2013. The nationwide
>> median for software software developers is about $90,000, according to
>> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm.
>> The average full-time programmer is not that good. It's completely
>> reasonable to expect to be as good as the average software developer
>> and be paid accordingly, especially when you take freelancing options
>> into account.
>
> What if you don’t like programming, or don’t like programming for pay (or, for sake of discussion, the technology industry in general)? Still reasonable to expect to be in top 10% of income?

why don’t you like it? you haven’t given a criticism of it. you treat professions and likes as if they are arbitrary, random whims. so, again, the real issue here is irrationality.

this question is a lot like, “What if you don’t like using English?” (Or Russian or other languages. Don’t think moving to another country will get you out of my argument!) What if you don’t like reading, talking, writing? Hell, what if you don’t like thinking?

Why should English be universal and Americans that don’t want to move to another country never really grow up and are like “I hate English. I’m not happy having to have a job involving English”. But then lisp is only suitable to a few people?

>>> Top 10% of getting your preferences met?
>>
>> Why not? Take romantic preferences for example. By learning the basics
>> of generally-available pickup knowledge, it's completely reasonable
>> for a guy to be in the top 10% here.
>>
>>> Top 10% of creating useful new knowledge?
>>
>> Again, why not?
>>
>>> Something else?
>>
>> Whatever is important to you. I think part of Elliot's point was that
>> most people suck so badly that it doesn't require an enormous amount
>> of effort to be in the top 10% of any aspect of life that you care
>> about.
>
> The thrust of my question was: What aspects of life is it important to care about being in the top 10% of? Income? Knowledge? Getting preferences met? What other stuff?

People told you: whichever matter to you.

If you’re in the top 10% for spending money well, like not wanting any social status purchases, you might be OK without top 10% income. But you’ll need top 10% at some money related something or your life just won’t be very good, cuz that’s not a very high standard, cuz more than 90% of people are grossly irrational about tons of stuff.

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
www.curi.us

[PAS]

On May 30, 2015, at 9:03 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> On May 30, 2015, at 6:39 PM, PAS <p...@paipas.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 30, 2015, at 12:35 PM, 'Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum' petrogradp...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:51 AM, PAS <p...@paipas.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On May 30, 2015, at 12:23 AM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>
>> I missed fixing the Apple mail quote bug - trying to dash off a quick post and forgot.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it’s like, you maybe shouldn’t base your life plan on being top 0.01% at stuff, but it’s completely reasonable to expect to be top 10% and plan accordingly. you don’t have to plan your life so it’ll still work well if you’re 30th percentile. that’s actually kinda pointless since no 30th percentile life works well anyway, and 30th percentile people don’t get their planning right anyway.
>>>>
>>>> What is important to be top 10% at life?
>>>

<SNIP>

>>>>
>>>
>>> Whatever is important to you. I think part of Elliot's point was that
>>> most people suck so badly that it doesn't require an enormous amount
>>> of effort to be in the top 10% of any aspect of life that you care
>>> about.
>>
>> The thrust of my question was: What aspects of life is it important to care about being in the top 10% of? Income? Knowledge? Getting preferences met? What other stuff?
>
> People told you: whichever matter to you.

Which things should matter is a moral question. I think there are some differences due to individual situations, but also some overlap. There are some things which having a top 10% skill ought to matter to most people. Do you agree? What are they?

From prior discussions I’m guessing you think that having a top 10% knowledge of the best existing philosophy ought to matter to most people. Am I right about that guess?

Then there’s:

>
> If you’re in the top 10% for spending money well, like not wanting any social status purchases, you might be OK without top 10% income. But you’ll need top 10% at some money related something or your life just won’t be very good, cuz that’s not a very high standard, cuz more than 90% of people are grossly irrational about tons of stuff.

So, top 10% at something money related ought to matter.

What else?

Should being in the top 10% at advancing / breaking new ground in some area of knowledge matter to people?

Should having a life span in the top 10% matter to people?

PàS

[PAS]

On May 31, 2015, at 7:44 AM, PAS <p...@paipas.com> wrote:
>
> Which things should matter is a moral question. I think there are some differences due to individual situations, but also some overlap. There are some things which having a top 10% skill ought to matter to most people. Do you agree? What are they?

A related question:
Should you try to associate mostly with people who are better than you, people at your own level, or people below you?

Suppose someone guesses correctly that they’re at the 90th percentile on some skill, and they have 3 offers with the exact same pay using that skill but can only accept 1 (like, say they’re full time job offers).

Company #1’s group doing this work is 50th percentile to 90th percentile people. So if you take their offer, you’re going to get lead roles on their best projects. You’ll have your pick of projects, and will be able to delegate any less critical parts you don’t want to do to underlings who aren’t as good as you. But you’ll have no one better around to learn from. You could easily stagnate or even regress in your skills.

Company #2 group doing this work is 85th percentile to 95th percentile people. So if you take their offer, you will be middle of their ranks (until / unless you improve). You will have some opportunities to learn from people better than you, and some opportunities to lead and choose projects. But you could easily get used to your “middle of the pack” status, kinda coast & never break out.

Company #3 group doing this work is 90th percentile to 100th percentile people. So you just barely made the cut, and if you take their offer you will be starting out at the very bottom. That means you will have lots of opportunity to learn from people better than you, but probably not get to work on the best projects, won’t get to delegate anything & will probably get everyone else’s shit work delegated to you. Again, unless/until you improve (in this case, a lot).

Which of these offers is the best to take? Life rarely presents such absolutely clean choices, but this general problem is a common one.

PàS

[anonyomous FI]

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
> There was a David Deutsch (I think) post, long ago, which was memorable to me. I only remember the idea clearly, not the details, but it went something like this:
>
> poster: i don’t wanna spoil my child. if i give him stuff he wants, he’ll form unrealistic expectations about getting stuff he wants in life. he’ll never deal with real life.
>
> DD: say you do stuff for your child, give him stuff, etc. and he expects life to work that way. and you keep doing it. then he’ll be right, his life will in fact work that way.
>
> (end summary)

Is that what parent should prefer... as long as the child wants? What
in this provision makes a better life for the parents and for the
child?

Traditional arrangement where children expecting for life to work in a
way where of some things he wants somebody gives, but of some things
he wants, nobody gives until he earns.

How is better if parent raises a child to always expect when he wants
parent gives?

>
> of course, people can also learn to get lots of stuff they want themselves, later on. that’s fine. in any case, wanting stuff and getting it can continue, it doesn’t have to be unrealistic. one can go through all of life that way.

Why would children want to learn this skill if someone already gives
what he wants? What problem will child have that learning this will
solve?

Anon E Mouse

[Elliot Temple]

On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:31 AM, anonyomous FI <anonymousfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>
>> There was a David Deutsch (I think) post, long ago, which was memorable to me. I only remember the idea clearly, not the details, but it went something like this:
>>
>> poster: i don’t wanna spoil my child. if i give him stuff he wants, he’ll form unrealistic expectations about getting stuff he wants in life. he’ll never deal with real life.
>>
>> DD: say you do stuff for your child, give him stuff, etc. and he expects life to work that way. and you keep doing it. then he’ll be right, his life will in fact work that way.
>>
>> (end summary)
>
> Is that what parent should prefer... as long as the child wants? What
> in this provision makes a better life for the parents and for the
> child?

Should parent prefer helping child get stuff he wants? (Including helping figure out better preferences as appropriate.) Yes. Why the hell not?

> Traditional arrangement where children expecting for life to work in a
> way where of some things he wants somebody gives, but of some things
> he wants, nobody gives until he earns.
>
> How is better if parent raises a child to always expect when he wants
> parent gives?

Everyone agrees child doesn’t have to earn his food or bed. Why should an iPhone be different?

If being forced to earn stuff is so great and educational, make your child earn is food or starve.

>> of course, people can also learn to get lots of stuff they want themselves, later on. that’s fine. in any case, wanting stuff and getting it can continue, it doesn’t have to be unrealistic. one can go through all of life that way.
>
> Why would children want to learn this skill if someone already gives
> what he wants? What problem will child have that learning this will
> solve?

Why would anyone ever want to live? Why do anything in life?

You seem to think the best lifestyle is to do almost nothing, if you can get away with it. You can achieve that much better by killing yourself. Some of us disagree.

Look at Howard Roark. He wanted to make buildings. You should want stuff. If you want stuff, you won’t just sit on your ass all day.

It’s precisely because your own parents were terribly coercive that you now have trouble getting off the couch and a thousand other disasters in your life. It’s the lack of maximally helpful parenting (or anything even slightly close) that you have experience with.

Your experience being coerced is no guide to your position that if only your child has resources, the last thing he’d ever want to do is be productive or be John Galt.

Your view is that people with a choice between a good, productive life, or a shit life, will choose the shit life. That resources, rather than helping a person pursue stuff in life better, let one slack off and do nothing, which is what everyone inherently wants to do. Your view of life is upside down and evil, and the parenting policies you recommend are just the kinds of things necessary to make sure the next generation is as broken and immoral as you are.

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
www.curi.us

[PAS]

Checking my understanding of FI/TCS - which I think would include:
- No time, energy, and thought process wasted in fighting benefits both the parent and child.
- If the parent tries to give the child everything he wants, still some day the child will likely want something that the parent can’t give. Problems are inevitable.
- Being used to and expecting to get what he wants (i.e. to successfully solve problems), the child will be interested in solving the problem the parent can’t, and optimistic about its ability to be solved.
- The parent and child working together to solve such a problem may succeed where the parent alone failed. Or the child may not have had flaws passed on that the parent has, and thus be able to solve the problem on his own where the parent could not.
- In this way, the parent and child together or the child alone will be likely to learn how to solve problems that the parent currently cannot solve.
- So then in turn the parent would benefit if he participated in solving the problem or the child chooses to share the knowledge of how to solve the problem the parent used to not be able to solve.

There’s probably more, but have I got at least that part right?

PàS

[Erin Minter]

because having that skill leads to a better life. And the child is used to and understands wanting stuff (which includes stuff like a good life) and getting it (which includes doing what it takes to get it).

Erin

[Elliot Temple]

The anon post is especially pure evil. TCS/FI/Oism are about the only things that know this. Your comments don’t indicate knowing it.

Your comments are like a few bricks that aren’t a building, aren’t much of anything.

At the level of precision you’re able to deal with, and taken individually without any thought to the implications, they are OK – the metaphorical bricks are hard, not mush.

Read narrowly, they aren’t evil. They don’t bear much resemblance to TCS though. And everyone who doesn’t understand TCS – much more fully than the stuff in PAS’s post – does a lot of evil.


PS You should put blank lines between your bullet points because they are paragraph length, rather than single line (like 80 chars is a rule of thumb here) points. If you look at it as a whole, it’s this huge blob of text that’s much larger than is typically seen – or convenient to read – without whitespace.

Do you lack a conceptual understanding of putting whitespace between paragraphs in the first place? Do you only know to do that as a completely rote rule? That’s so fragile that if you don’t recognize something as a paragraph in the usual way, you have no knowledge of what to do, it just doesn’t apply.

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
www.curi.us

[Elliot Temple]

On May 31, 2015, at 7:44 AM, PAS <p...@paipas.com> wrote:

> On May 30, 2015, at 9:03 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> On May 30, 2015, at 6:39 PM, PAS <p...@paipas.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 30, 2015, at 12:35 PM, 'Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum' petrogradp...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:51 AM, PAS <p...@paipas.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On May 30, 2015, at 12:23 AM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> I missed fixing the Apple mail quote bug - trying to dash off a quick post and forgot.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it’s like, you maybe shouldn’t base your life plan on being top 0.01% at stuff, but it’s completely reasonable to expect to be top 10% and plan accordingly. you don’t have to plan your life so it’ll still work well if you’re 30th percentile. that’s actually kinda pointless since no 30th percentile life works well anyway, and 30th percentile people don’t get their planning right anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is important to be top 10% at life?
>>>>
> <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whatever is important to you. I think part of Elliot's point was that
>>>> most people suck so badly that it doesn't require an enormous amount
>>>> of effort to be in the top 10% of any aspect of life that you care
>>>> about.
>>>
>>> The thrust of my question was: What aspects of life is it important to care about being in the top 10% of? Income? Knowledge? Getting preferences met? What other stuff?
>>
>> People told you: whichever matter to you.
>
> Which things should matter is a moral question.

Oh you want to know what’s good to want in life? Unbounded beginning-of-infinity compatible stuff. A wide variety of stuff works for that IFF you know some philosophy and use rational methods. Without that general purpose skill to approach things in a good (error correcting, progress making) way, basically nothing in life is any good.

do you have a more specific question? it’s a big topic and in general one lives and solves problems that come up. has a problem come up? if not then, for now, work on learning to detect and discuss problems.

btw do people know that IFF means “if and only if” or are they willing to google it? i don’t know if i should use that one.

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
www.curi.us

[Elliot Temple]

On May 31, 2015, at 8:03 AM, PAS <p...@paipas.com> wrote:

> On May 31, 2015, at 7:44 AM, PAS <p...@paipas.com> wrote:
>>
>> Which things should matter is a moral question. I think there are some differences due to individual situations, but also some overlap. There are some things which having a top 10% skill ought to matter to most people. Do you agree? What are they?
>
> A related question:
> Should you try to associate mostly with people who are better than you, people at your own level, or people below you?

Given the choice, associate the most with people better than you. It’s easier to learn from them.

> Suppose someone guesses correctly that they’re at the 90th percentile on some skill, and they have 3 offers with the exact same pay using that skill but can only accept 1 (like, say they’re full time job offers).
>
> Company #1’s group doing this work is 50th percentile to 90th percentile people. So if you take their offer, you’re going to get lead roles on their best projects. You’ll have your pick of projects, and will be able to delegate any less critical parts you don’t want to do to underlings who aren’t as good as you. But you’ll have no one better around to learn from. You could easily stagnate or even regress in your skills.
>
> Company #2 group doing this work is 85th percentile to 95th percentile people. So if you take their offer, you will be middle of their ranks (until / unless you improve). You will have some opportunities to learn from people better than you, and some opportunities to lead and choose projects. But you could easily get used to your “middle of the pack” status, kinda coast & never break out.
>
> Company #3 group doing this work is 90th percentile to 100th percentile people. So you just barely made the cut, and if you take their offer you will be starting out at the very bottom. That means you will have lots of opportunity to learn from people better than you, but probably not get to work on the best projects, won’t get to delegate anything & will probably get everyone else’s shit work delegated to you. Again, unless/until you improve (in this case, a lot).
>
> Which of these offers is the best to take? Life rarely presents such absolutely clean choices, but this general problem is a common one.

The only excuse for not working with the best people would be if it’s a dayjob where you intend to coast, while doing your best to work with the best people on some other project outside your job.

If you aren’t trying to get involved with the best in at least one part of life, kill yourself (or drop everything and try rather more seriously to figure out FI).


On a side note, it makes no sense to run a company with zero interns, newbies, secretaries, janitors, etc, where you take 90th percentile people and have them do shitwork for 95th percentile people. Decent companies match people to work requiring their skills, which isn’t shitwork. Not perfectly, but reasonably well. Indecent companies aren’t able to recruit top talent, because the very best people have options to choose from.

Decent companies do not do all their employee rankings in a relative way. They’d look at, objectively, are you good and able to produce? If so, great, here’s some stuff where you can be productive. They wouldn’t mistreat you just because some of your peers are even better. Again, companies that terrible are not really able to recruit the best people.

I think your worldview includes a really fucked up view of what sorts of jobs and companies exist or can exist. Maybe you took experience from the middle and assumed all the stupidity is the same at a company packed full of much better people – but that makes no sense. Or maybe you took experience with some companies with top tier reputations (e.g. Microsoft which did some stack ranking crap – since repealed – google it), and saw a bunch of stupidity there, and didn’t question that they actually have the best people.

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
www.curi.us

[PAS]

I don’t know it.

I do know that pure evil exists. I have a couple of things in mind in reference to especially pure evil which have been discussed on your lists before:

- The religious admonition, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding.”

- An article condemning parents and children for using their electronics like iPads on airplanes.

I would put the anon post significantly below both of the above examples on an evil purity scale. I guess you disagree, but I don’t understand why.

>
> Your comments are like a few bricks that aren’t a building, aren’t much of anything.
>
> At the level of precision you’re able to deal with, and taken individually without any thought to the implications, they are OK – the metaphorical bricks are hard, not mush.
>
> Read narrowly, they aren’t evil. They don’t bear much resemblance to TCS though. And everyone who doesn’t understand TCS – much more fully than the stuff in PAS’s post – does a lot of evil.

How do I go from a few bricks to the building?

> PS You should put blank lines between your bullet points because they are paragraph length, rather than single line (like 80 chars is a rule of thumb here) points. If you look at it as a whole, it’s this huge blob of text that’s much larger than is typically seen – or convenient to read – without whitespace.
>
> Do you lack a conceptual understanding of putting whitespace between paragraphs in the first place? Do you only know to do that as a completely rote rule? That’s so fragile that if you don’t recognize something as a paragraph in the usual way, you have no knowledge of what to do, it just doesn’t apply.

Other places I have written posts in do not (at least explicitly) value whitespace. This is similar to them not valuing quoting protocols, text only emails, and in some places not valuing avoidance of top posting. It just doesn’t come up.

I also have habits carried over from other situations which explicitly discourage white space.

University explicitly discouraged white space in documents as mere “padding" to make them longer. This was in the days before electronic submission / word count. Assignment lengths were measured in pages (i.e. a 6 page essay…). The professors were very strict about not making margins too big, no extra lines between paragraphs (just indent 5 spaces) or bullet points but then (often) the whole document double spaced so they could write stuff between your lines. It was a way of enforcing an approximate word count without actually having to count words.

Of course I thought (both then and now) that length requirements were dumb, but I formed habits derived from them anyway.

For presentations, the idea is to limit the amount per slide but the rule is to make the font as big as you can (so people in the back can read it too) rather than have a smaller font with white space between the bullet points.

Now that I know there’s a problem with the way I did it here I can try to change my habits.

PàS

[Elliot Temple]

One of his ideas is that no one would live productively unless they had no other choice.

Did you notice that idea in his post? What did you notice?

>> Your comments are like a few bricks that aren’t a building, aren’t much of anything.
>>
>> At the level of precision you’re able to deal with, and taken individually without any thought to the implications, they are OK – the metaphorical bricks are hard, not mush.
>>
>> Read narrowly, they aren’t evil. They don’t bear much resemblance to TCS though. And everyone who doesn’t understand TCS – much more fully than the stuff in PAS’s post – does a lot of evil.
>
> How do I go from a few bricks to the building?

Read and discuss books and other writing. You have access to plenty of information about this. If you want it, there it is. If you have problems learning from the information, it’s up to you to ask about them, and pursue those topics to resolution.

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
www.curi.us

[PAS]

I did not notice that idea.

What I did notice / thought he was saying was that (some? all?) people would not live (as?) productively as they otherwise might have, if they’re given everything they want by their parent.

I could be imposing my own ideas in the interpretation of his email though. My ideas are complex and evolving in this area, and probably still somewhat / fully incompatible with TCS. You may think they’re evil too (though I hope not). But I’m willing to explain what I think now and revise based on argument. I think:

(1) Some people choose to live productively and will no matter how much they have or how much other people give them. Giving them more makes them even more productive. There is never “enough”; they’re never “done” since what they want is infinite progress. The best people are in this category, and they’re kinda rare.

(2) Some people choose to live productively only so far as it takes to achieve a certain standard of living, “enough". If someone else gives what they need for that standard indefinitely they won’t do much, since they have enough. Giving them more can make them less productive as they’ll only produce until they have enough. I think most people fall into this category, but the actual standards for “enough" vary wildly. Some people will stay motivated and productive until / unless they get a mansion and a yacht and a jet and passive income to pay for it all on an ongoing basis, but then that’s “enough” for them and they hang it up and retire.

For a few, the standard for “enough” is not much above where lack of productivity would cause death, which I guess roughly corresponds to what you think Anon’s idea is - they “would [not] live productively unless they had no other choice.” But in my idea, those with standards that low are a relatively small number of people, at least in western countries. I think it was Citibank used to run an ad, “…because Americans want to succeed, not just survive.” By and large I think that’s true, so long as you define “success” as achieving a standard significantly higher than it takes to avoid death, but not the idea of making infinite progress like group (1).

(3) Some people will not choose to live productively no matter how much other people give them. They’re even worse than people in group (2) with really low standards; they’d rather just die than be productive. Giving them more just means they'll live unproductive lives that are a little more comfortable. If people completely stop giving them stuff, they’ll eventually die or commit suicide. I think this category is relatively common among welfare recipients and poor retirees.

What separates these groups is only their choices and ideas - ideas about productivity, progress, expectations for living standards, knowledge of how to do interesting things that are productive (as opposed to only knowing how to do uninteresting things). It’s possible for a person to change categories.

However, I think persuading someone to change what category they're in is hard, or at least its something I do not know how to do to the upside.

I’m pretty convinced that the welfare state plays a pivotal role in persuading people to move their standards down within group (2) by making “enough” relatively easier to achieve with low standards but relatively harder to achieve with high standards. :( I think it’s plausible that the welfare state also persuades some people to move from (2) to (3), but if so I don’t have an explanation for how that works.

The welfare state also affects the group (1) people because it takes resources away from them that they’d otherwise use to be more productive. :(((((((

PàS

[Elliot Temple]

same difference. he thinks being productive is something to be avoided, rather than something to be sought out.

> I could be imposing my own ideas in the interpretation of his email though. My ideas are complex and evolving in this area, and probably still somewhat / fully incompatible with TCS. You may think they’re evil too (though I hope not). But I’m willing to explain what I think now and revise based on argument. I think:
>
> (1) Some people choose to live productively and will no matter how much they have or how much other people give them. Giving them more makes them even more productive. There is never “enough”; they’re never “done” since what they want is infinite progress. The best people are in this category, and they’re kinda rare.
>
> (2) Some people choose to live productively only so far as it takes to achieve a certain standard of living, “enough". If someone else gives what they need for that standard indefinitely they won’t do much, since they have enough. Giving them more can make them less productive as they’ll only produce until they have enough. I think most people fall into this category, but the actual standards for “enough" vary wildly. Some people will stay motivated and productive until / unless they get a mansion and a yacht and a jet and passive income to pay for it all on an ongoing basis, but then that’s “enough” for them and they hang it up and retire.

Do you think the children of John Galt and Dagny Taggart would fall into this category?

No?

So let’s go ahead and point out what’s going on:

the anti-production parents manage to raise a kid who shares their mistake. they want him to practice living in a malevolent universe, so they make his childhood hell, on purpose. that’s HOW he comes to share their hatred of (productive) life.

so a parent utterly fails to prepare his child for independence and a productive adult life. how is the parent crippling the child a justification for the parent to say, “since my child is crippled, he doesn’t want to do a lot of work. so clearly i’ll stop supporting him to make him to work.”

the parent hurts the child, then he uses that as a reason to hurt the child more. meanwhile parent takes zero blame and demands child solve everything.


and, contrary to the original guy’s vague, dishonest implications, i think it’s important to say clearly: none of this is about budgets.

if you don’t buy a kid something cuz of a budget, that’s one thing. if you don’t buy it cuz u don’t want to spoil him, that is something else and was not a matter of your budget.

(yes parents commonly blur this line by lying about their budgets)

> For a few, the standard for “enough” is not much above where lack of productivity would cause death, which I guess roughly corresponds to what you think Anon’s idea is - they “would [not] live productively unless they had no other choice.” But in my idea, those with standards that low are a relatively small number of people, at least in western countries. I think it was Citibank used to run an ad, “…because Americans want to succeed, not just survive.” By and large I think that’s true, so long as you define “success” as achieving a standard significantly higher than it takes to avoid death, but not the idea of making infinite progress like group (1).
>
> (3) Some people will not choose to live productively no matter how much other people give them. They’re even worse than people in group (2) with really low standards; they’d rather just die than be productive. Giving them more just means they'll live unproductive lives that are a little more comfortable. If people completely stop giving them stuff, they’ll eventually die or commit suicide. I think this category is relatively common among welfare recipients and poor retirees.
>
> What separates these groups is only their choices and ideas - ideas about productivity, progress, expectations for living standards, knowledge of how to do interesting things that are productive (as opposed to only knowing how to do uninteresting things). It’s possible for a person to change categories.
>
> However, I think persuading someone to change what category they're in is hard, or at least its something I do not know how to do to the upside.
>
> I’m pretty convinced that the welfare state plays a pivotal role in persuading people to move their standards down within group (2) by making “enough” relatively easier to achieve with low standards but relatively harder to achieve with high standards. :( I think it’s plausible that the welfare state also persuades some people to move from (2) to (3), but if so I don’t have an explanation for how that works.
>
> The welfare state also affects the group (1) people because it takes resources away from them that they’d otherwise use to be more productive. :(((((((

as usual you write a long post that’s mostly irrelevant and kinda mundane. you write to what you already know – as if we were going to hang on your every word and be educated by your lectures – instead of writing to learn. you write down to us, instead of in an aspirational way.

if you had a huge amount of time and energy to write a lot of mundane or off topic stuff – IN ADDITION TO plenty of good questions and other stuff – it’d be no big deal. it’s ok to start topics in a bit of a boring, conservative way, if you actually iterate from there. but this is routinely as far as it goes with PAS who doesn’t pursue his topics very long.

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
www.curi.us

[PAS]

On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:58 AM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2015, at 7:04 PM, PAS <p...@paipas.com> wrote:
>
>> I could be imposing my own ideas in the interpretation of his email though. My ideas are complex and evolving in this area, and probably still somewhat / fully incompatible with TCS. You may think they’re evil too (though I hope not). But I’m willing to explain what I think now and revise based on argument. I think:
>>
>> (1) Some people choose to live productively and will no matter how much they have or how much other people give them. Giving them more makes them even more productive. There is never “enough”; they’re never “done” since what they want is infinite progress. The best people are in this category, and they’re kinda rare.
>>
>> (2) Some people choose to live productively only so far as it takes to achieve a certain standard of living, “enough". If someone else gives what they need for that standard indefinitely they won’t do much, since they have enough. Giving them more can make them less productive as they’ll only produce until they have enough. I think most people fall into this category, but the actual standards for “enough" vary wildly. Some people will stay motivated and productive until / unless they get a mansion and a yacht and a jet and passive income to pay for it all on an ongoing basis, but then that’s “enough” for them and they hang it up and retire.
>
> Do you think the children of John Galt and Dagny Taggart would fall into this category?
>

I don’t know.

Mostly because I don’t know a lot about how people fall into a category. I don’t know how the ideas involved can be effectively passed on (or not) or changed once they’re already in place (or not).

I’m confident the children of John Galt and Dagny Taggart would be exposed to the ideas from the best category, and hear arguments for them, but I don’t think that’s deterministic. I also don’t think you were speaking in terms of odds / probabilities - if you were, then I’m confident the probability is less than it would be for children of category (2) and (3) parents.

But apart from odds and probabilities, it’s logically plausible to me that the children of John Galt and Dagny Taggart could fall into this category, or not.

What are some arguments that they wouldn’t?

PàS

[Erin Minter]

right. TCS-coercion can lead to a person devoting massive effort and creativity into sucking at reason (sucking at using their mind to think and solve problems.)

Anti-reason methods like this destroy minds: destroy your ability to reason, to think, to have preferences and want stuff, and do what it takes to get it.

A big part of productivity and wanting a productive life is seeing the virtue in using your mind to solve problems. If a person's mind has been destroyed by parental coercion, self-coercion and evasion, then it’s a lot harder to see a productive (thinking) life AS A GOOD THING in and of itself. It’s like not even on their radar.

Rather, they have the idea that “Reason and thinking hurts. So I don’t rly want to do that. But I sort of need money for food and rent, so if I can mooch off my parents and get that without having to think / use my mind then that’s a total win!”

No. Anytime you choose to NOT think and use your mind, it’s a total loss! Trying to take a shortcut and get the outcomes of thinking (like money or knowledge) without actually putting in any of the thinking is a mistake.

But unfortunately some ppl not only don’t value *thinking and producing* for it’s own sake, but at this point they don’t even think such a thing is possible. They want to stay as far away from thinking and reason as they can.

> It’s the lack of maximally helpful parenting (or anything even slightly close) that you have experience with.
>
> Your experience being coerced is no guide to your position that if only your child has resources, the last thing he’d ever want to do is be productive or be John Galt.
>
> Your view is that people with a choice between a good, productive life, or a shit life, will choose the shit life.

If you hate reason, then I think you are going to hate a productive life.

> That resources, rather than helping a person pursue stuff in life better, let one slack off and do nothing, which is what everyone inherently wants to do.

and since (supposedly) everyone inherently wants to slack off and do nothing, we need all of these “productivity" videos/articles/tips to better TCS-coerce ppl into being “productive”.

But this isn’t really productive in the sense I’m talking about. It’s “productive" only from a superficial, outcomes-focused perspective. Not from the perspective of using your mind to think and create knowledge and reap the *products* of THAT process.

And anyways, “productivity” tips in many cases is sort of like spinning your wheels doing stuff which actually could be horribly mistaken. Just cuz you are doing horribly mistaken stuff faster or more efficiently, doesn’t take away the fact that the stuff you are spending time on is still horribly mistaken.

Erin