Deutsch's way of thinking IS methodical
Rami Rustom
not methodical. But I disagree. He follows his intuition. He follows
is trains of thought. He does not try to control them nor does he try
to prevent changing from one train to another. And he does what he can
to eliminate the external (and probably internal) things that impede
these trains of thought.
I set my phone to not beep when I'm deep in thought. I lock my door so
no one accidentally walks in. Oh I also work from home. I use a 47"
screen as my workspace and lots of papers and yes they are all lying
around. I have a dream journal next to my bed too.
So when your mind takes a tangent, let your work follow. This means
that you should not spend time tidying up your previous project and
that you shouldn't have to spend any time reopening your next project.
Because these things prevent you from switching projects (trains of
thought). And for some people, including me, this is especially
important because its very easy for me to lose my train of thought and
very hard to get it back.
This means also not planning any time frames for your thought trains.
It means not creating a schedule for your thought trains. Only your
unconscious knows what it wants when it wants it and your conscious
can not predict what it will want, so creating a schedule for your
thought trains is futile.
So it is our intuition that we should be creating a method around. I
think this is considered a methodology. Right?
I've been following my intuition exactly like Deutsch since late July
of this year and it has dramatically improved my work. This is
actually part of what my theory is about. I had already begun
formalizing this as a system. But then I stopped when learned that
other people think very differently than I do. But I wonder if it is
any different the manner described above.
Shouldn't this method work for everyone?
Tanya Davison
You should prefer the method you describe over planning it. But people don't always know how to do that and have bigger, more time taking projects, so they end up preferring planning it instead. Really however it should be a matter of problem solving certain things on top of what you described.
--
Before posting, read the list guidelines. Posts that do not meet the style guidelines may be rejected.
http://beginningofinfinity.com/list-guidelines
To post: beginning-...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe: beginning-of-inf...@googlegroups.com
Post, unsubscribe, or view archives on the web:
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity
Rami Rustom
On Dec 21, 10:55 am, Tanya Davison <tanya.davi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Each day I see the task and do a quick scan of the ideas in it. This
may spark a thought train which may lead to some good work. If not
though, then the next day I'll see the task again and then it may
spark a thought train. And if the deadline arrives, I have no qualms
of postponing the deadline if I'm not satisfied with the idea. But
most times I will let my employees decide whether the solution to the
project is sufficient. I do this because everyone calls me a
perfectionist and I know that this can stall projects so I let the non-
perfectionists make sure that my perfectionist tenancy doesn't
unnecessarily stall projects.
> But there are actually a great deal of problem with as you say 'creating a
> schedule for your thought'. One that you say, which is that your 'gut' is
> actually much better equipped at guessing what you'll enjoy than your
> conscious decisions. Two planning always is future predicting, which is a
> pretty bad thing to do when the cost of getting it wrong is your own
> progress and fulfilment.
>
> You should prefer the method you describe over planning it. But people
> don't always know how to do that and have bigger, more time taking
> projects, so they end up preferring planning it instead. Really however it
> should be a matter of problem solving certain things on top of what you
> described.
>
> Some note worthy ones: be open to wanting to drop goals if you don't seem
> to be putting any time into them; look out for things that could be
> pressuring you to pursue it; sometimes you need to 'warm up' in some way to
> get into thinking about something; vague projects, like setting the goal
> 'write a book on morality', is unenjoyable to approach, whereas specific
> problems like 'what's the best response to X argument that morality is
> subjective' and then 'how to write that so its engaging as a chapter of a
> book' get you thinking about it.
spent any time on them.
Yes I do look for things that pressure me. Deadlines cause pressure on
me, which is why I try to avoid them.
Yes I warm up the same way. I ask myself as many Socratic questions as
possible without spending much time answering them. Even if I don't
come up with the answers during the first session, I know that the
next time that I review this topic, I'll probably come up with some
good answers. Actually the answers usually come to me at odd times
like while driving; and I'll put a 1 to 3 word note in my phone so I
don't forget it (or rather because I know I'll probably forget it).
Elliot Temple
On Dec 21, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
> It was suggested in a TCS article that Deutsch's way of thinking is
> not methodical.
Specifically:
http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/node/95
> SL: But as a scientist don't you need to be free of distractions and work methodically?
>
> DD: In my experience, scientific progress is never methodical. The answer to the question never comes from the route that one first thinks of. It never comes from even the hundredth route that one would have planned in advance. The conversation one has in the tea room is more important than the seminar that one is ostensibly attending. The paper that one comes across accidentally in the library is more important than the one that one went there to fetch.
>
> Likewise, thinking that the research might be impeded by being ‘distracted’ suggests that there is some correct state of mind that you could be in that is not ‘distracted’ – the state of mind which will lead to the answer, as opposed to the ‘distracted’ one, which won't. But actually, since, as I said, scientific progress is very untidy and involves lots of back-tracking and it often involves going in a direction which one would have initially thought irrelevant, being ‘distracted’ is actually part of the very stuff of discovery, provided that one is distracted by things that seem to make sense.
So, to clarify, *intentionally* not methodical.
> But I disagree. He follows his intuition. He follows
> is trains of thought. He does not try to control them nor does he try
> to prevent changing from one train to another. And he does what he can
> to eliminate the external (and probably internal) things that impede
> these trains of thought.
Methodical means *not* doing what you describe. It means doing something else instead: "done according to a systematic or established form of procedure"
Methodical means planning stuff out in advance and carefully proceeding in an organized way.
-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/
Elliot Temple
No. For example, David used his method to produce two books over a span of many years. His projects aren't limited to a couple days duration; they can be big.
> I think people aim for a plan and admire the
> person who stays focused on that plan for a few reasons. People tend to
> admire having long term goals, I guess to do with how important people
> think it is to secure your future over enjoying now. Related its admirable
> to be focused, to work hard even if you don't enjoy it.
Why is hurting oneself admirable?
Who is gaining anything from such actions? Others are benefitting? That would be altruism, which is bad.
> But there are actually a great deal of problem with as you say 'creating a
> schedule for your thought'. One that you say, which is that your 'gut' is
> actually much better equipped at guessing what you'll enjoy than your
> conscious decisions.
One has to judge ideas on their content and merits, not their source. Ideas from the 'gut' are not privileged as good anymore than they are anti-privileged as bad.
> Two planning always is future predicting, which is a
> pretty bad thing to do when the cost of getting it wrong is your own
> progress and fulfilment.
>
> You should prefer the method you describe over planning it. But people
> don't always know how to do that and have bigger, more time taking
> projects, so they end up preferring planning it instead. Really however it
> should be a matter of problem solving certain things on top of what you
> described.
The basic way to continue with a project over time is to *prefer* it.
Note that if one prefers to work on a project, being forced by a plan is useless: one would work on it anyway, voluntarily.
So the concept of being pressured or forced into continuing with a project by a plan is only really applicable in the cases where one wouldn't work on it otherwise, so the plan results in a change of behavior. In this case, the plan is a commitment to violate one's own preferences and hurt oneself.
If it's actually a good idea to work on the project more, one ought to prefer it. If one doesn't, either it's a bad project (at this moment) or he should learn more about it in order to tentatively reach a conclusion he prefers and can accept.
People who find that if they do what they prefer then they never accomplish any big projects *that they think they want to*, need to be more introspective and gain more understanding of their preferences as a first step.
-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.us/
Rami Rustom
term *methodical*, as used in Deutsch's argument, suggests that future
work is planned. And the way I used the term, Deutsch's way of working
*is* methodical but that there is no planning of future work. So I
think Deutsch was saying that there isn't a method so that others
wouldn't confused the idea of a method with the misconception that a
method necessarily means that there is planning of future work.
Rami Rustom
arguments to my family members that selfishness is not necessarily bad
and that sometimes, selfishness is preferable because it can lead to
altruism. For example, the instructions in an airplane explain that if
the cabin pressure drops and the air masks come down each person is to
setup their own mask first and then others. This is selfish first,
then altruistic second. And if someone were to try to be altruistic
first, then they could lose consciousness and fail to put the mask on
to the one they are helping and to themselves. So the intent of
altruism first could lead to failing to be altruistic, but the attempt
of selfishness first can allow someone to then be altruistic.
Kristen Ely
On Dec 28, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Rami Rustom <rami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 28, 10:41 am, Elliot Temple <c...@curi.us> wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Tanya Davison wrote:
>>> I think people aim for a plan and admire the
>>> person who stays focused on that plan for a few reasons. People tend to
>>> admire having long term goals, I guess to do with how important people
>>> think it is to secure your future over enjoying now. Related its admirable
>>> to be focused, to work hard even if you don't enjoy it.
>>
>> Why is hurting oneself admirable?
>>
>> Who is gaining anything from such actions? Others are benefitting? That would be altruism, which is bad.
>
> Oh. I thought altruism is good.
> Although I've lately made many
> arguments to my family members that selfishness is not necessarily bad
> and that sometimes, selfishness is preferable because it can lead to
> altruism.
> For example, the instructions in an airplane explain that if
> the cabin pressure drops and the air masks come down each person is to
> setup their own mask first and then others. This is selfish first,
> then altruistic second. And if someone were to try to be altruistic
> first, then they could lose consciousness and fail to put the mask on
> to the one they are helping and to themselves. So the intent of
> altruism first could lead to failing to be altruistic, but the attempt
> of selfishness first can allow someone to then be altruistic.
Rami Rustom
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Rami Rustom <rami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 10:41 am, Elliot Temple <c...@curi.us> wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Tanya Davison wrote:
>
>>>> I think people aim for a plan and admire the
>>>> person who stays focused on that plan for a few reasons. People tend to
>>>> admire having long term goals, I guess to do with how important people
>>>> think it is to secure your future over enjoying now. Related its
>>>> admirable
>>>> to be focused, to work hard even if you don't enjoy it.
>>>
>>> Why is hurting oneself admirable?
>>>
>>> Who is gaining anything from such actions? Others are benefitting? That
>>> would be altruism, which is bad.
>>
>> Oh. I thought altruism is good.
>
> No, altruism is bad. It means putting others ahead of yourself. Altruism is
> sacrificing yourself for other people and not getting what you want. That
> means giving up parts of your life, parts of yourself. Also, altruistic
> people often hope to at least benefit from the gratitude and appreciation of
> the people they sacrifice for, and if they don't get it, they are losing out
> twice -- they're not getting the things they'd like for themselves, and
> they're not getting the gratitude and appreciation they want from others.
I'd like to add some more here. Acting selfishly causes happiness and
prevents distress as you explained. And this is an individualistic
view.
But there is also a utilitarian view. If each individual acted
selfishly in order to cause their own happiness, then that happiness
will have a positive effect on the collective. This is liberalism.
And if each individual acted altruistically in order to cause other's
happiness, which most times causes distress in themselves, then that
distress will have a negative effect on the collective. Which explains
why liberalism is better.
-- Rami
Elliot Temple
On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
> I thought altruism is good.
Do you still think that? If so, what's good about it?
If you changed your mind, why should other people change their minds?
-- Elliot Temple
http://elliottemple.com/
Rami Rustom
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
>
> > I thought altruism is good.
>
> Do you still think that? If so, what's good about it?
No.
My understanding of selfishness and altruism [at least they way they
are defined below] is that both are bad.
Selfish - acting only in one's own interest [preferences].
Altruistic - acting only in others' interests [preferences].
When interacting with a group, what is moral is to act upon common
preferences of the group. That includes one's own interests and the
interests of each member of the group.
And it is ok for someone to decide not to interact with a group and
instead to be alone. And in this case, he can act selfishly without
negatively affecting others.
I think we need a new term for this. Something that we can use instead
of selfish and altruistic.
> If you changed your mind, why should other people change their minds?
People should realize that (1) acting selfishly [in a group setting]
hurts others which can lead to hurting one's self and (2) acting
altruistically hurts one's self and often hurts others.
-- Rami
Elliot Temple
On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2012 12:46 PM, "Elliot Temple" <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
>>
>>> I thought altruism is good.
>>
>> Do you still think that? If so, what's good about it?
>
> No.
>
> My understanding of selfishness and altruism [at least they way they
> are defined below] is that both are bad.
>
> Selfish - acting only in one's own interest [preferences].
>
> Altruistic - acting only in others' interests [preferences].
>
> When interacting with a group, what is moral is to act upon common
> preferences of the group. That includes one's own interests and the
> interests of each member of the group.
If you always get everything you want, a 100% selfish person would agree to that or live that way. So how does this differ from selfishness + wisdom?
> And it is ok for someone to decide not to interact with a group and
> instead to be alone. And in this case, he can act selfishly without
> negatively affecting others.
>
> I think we need a new term for this. Something that we can use instead
> of selfish and altruistic.
>
>
>> If you changed your mind, why should other people change their minds?
>
> People should realize that (1) acting selfishly [in a group setting]
> hurts others which can lead to hurting one's self and (2) acting
> altruistically hurts one's self and often hurts others.
I read this as:
1) don't act selfishly
2) don't act non-selfishly
Clarify?
Rami Rustom
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 2012 12:46 PM, "Elliot Temple" <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
>>>
>>>> I thought altruism is good.
>>>
>>> Do you still think that? If so, what's good about it?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> My understanding of selfishness and altruism [at least they way they
>> are defined below] is that both are bad.
>>
>> Selfish - acting only in one's own interest [preferences].
>>
>> Altruistic - acting only in others' interests [preferences].
>>
>> When interacting with a group, what is moral is to act upon common
>> preferences of the group. That includes one's own interests and the
>> interests of each member of the group.
>
> If you always get everything you want, a 100% selfish person would agree to that or live that way. So how does this differ from selfishness + wisdom?
I'm confused by the first sentence. But your question might have cleared it up.
Acting in a group with the common preferences of the group is still
100% selfish because each member gets 100% of what they want. So each
person is acting 100% selfishly.
So this is selfishness + the wisdom of finding common preferences of the group.
>> And it is ok for someone to decide not to interact with a group and
>> instead to be alone. And in this case, he can act selfishly without
>> negatively affecting others.
>>
>> I think we need a new term for this. Something that we can use instead
>> of selfish and altruistic.
>>
>>
>>> If you changed your mind, why should other people change their minds?
>>
>> People should realize that (1) acting selfishly [in a group setting]
>> hurts others which can lead to hurting one's self and (2) acting
>> altruistically hurts one's self and often hurts others.
>
> I read this as:
>
> 1) don't act selfishly
> 2) don't act non-selfishly
>
> Clarify?
People should realize that acting 100% selfishly is good when and only
when every member of the group is also acting 100% selfishly. And the
only way to do this is to find the common preferences of the group.
or
People should realize that getting 100% of what they want is good when
and only when every member of the group is also getting 100% of what
they want. And the only way to do this is to find the common
preferences of the group.
-- Rami
Elliot Temple
On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 2012 12:46 PM, "Elliot Temple" <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I thought altruism is good.
>>>>
>>>> Do you still think that? If so, what's good about it?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> My understanding of selfishness and altruism [at least they way they
>>> are defined below] is that both are bad.
>>>
>>> Selfish - acting only in one's own interest [preferences].
>>>
>>> Altruistic - acting only in others' interests [preferences].
>>>
>>> When interacting with a group, what is moral is to act upon common
>>> preferences of the group. That includes one's own interests and the
>>> interests of each member of the group.
>>
>> If you always get everything you want, a 100% selfish person would agree to that or live that way. So how does this differ from selfishness + wisdom?
>
> I'm confused by the first sentence. But your question might have cleared it up.
>
> Acting in a group with the common preferences of the group is still
> 100% selfish because each member gets 100% of what they want. So each
> person is acting 100% selfishly.
>
> So this is selfishness + the wisdom of finding common preferences of the group.
Why do you emphasize "the group"? Which group?
For many things, the relevant "group" is me, myself and I.
>>> And it is ok for someone to decide not to interact with a group and
>>> instead to be alone. And in this case, he can act selfishly without
>>> negatively affecting others.
>>>
>>> I think we need a new term for this. Something that we can use instead
>>> of selfish and altruistic.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you changed your mind, why should other people change their minds?
>>>
>>> People should realize that (1) acting selfishly [in a group setting]
>>> hurts others which can lead to hurting one's self and (2) acting
>>> altruistically hurts one's self and often hurts others.
>>
>> I read this as:
>>
>> 1) don't act selfishly
>> 2) don't act non-selfishly
>>
>> Clarify?
>
> People should realize that acting 100% selfishly is good when and only
> when every member of the group is also acting 100% selfishly. And the
> only way to do this is to find the common preferences of the group.
Do you mean to say that if someone else acts non-selfishly, then I have to change my way of life?
I think that's wrong. Their lifestyle isn't my problem or responsibility. In general I can keep living my way regardless of how they live. I can be self-focussed.
>
> or
>
> People should realize that getting 100% of what they want is good when
> and only when every member of the group is also getting 100% of what
> they want. And the only way to do this is to find the common
> preferences of the group.
Suppose I get what I want, but someone does something dumb so he's not getting 100% of what he wants. Now you're saying my life sucks, I have a big problem, I need to change, I shouldn't do this?
-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
Rami Rustom
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
>>>> On Jan 30, 2012 12:46 PM, "Elliot Temple" <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought altruism is good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you still think that? If so, what's good about it?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding of selfishness and altruism [at least they way they
>>>> are defined below] is that both are bad.
>>>>
>>>> Selfish - acting only in one's own interest [preferences].
>>>>
>>>> Altruistic - acting only in others' interests [preferences].
>>>>
>>>> When interacting with a group, what is moral is to act upon common
>>>> preferences of the group. That includes one's own interests and the
>>>> interests of each member of the group.
>>>
>>> If you always get everything you want, a 100% selfish person would agree to that or live that way. So how does this differ from selfishness + wisdom?
>>
>> I'm confused by the first sentence. But your question might have cleared it up.
>>
>> Acting in a group with the common preferences of the group is still
>> 100% selfish because each member gets 100% of what they want. So each
>> person is acting 100% selfishly.
>>
>> So this is selfishness + the wisdom of finding common preferences of the group.
>
> Why do you emphasize "the group"? Which group?
I just mean the people one chooses to be in the presence of at any one time.
> For many things, the relevant "group" is me, myself and I.
Yes. In which case common preferences don't matter because there is
only your preferences.
>>>> And it is ok for someone to decide not to interact with a group and
>>>> instead to be alone. And in this case, he can act selfishly without
>>>> negatively affecting others.
>>>>
>>>> I think we need a new term for this. Something that we can use instead
>>>> of selfish and altruistic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you changed your mind, why should other people change their minds?
>>>>
>>>> People should realize that (1) acting selfishly [in a group setting]
>>>> hurts others which can lead to hurting one's self and (2) acting
>>>> altruistically hurts one's self and often hurts others.
>>>
>>> I read this as:
>>>
>>> 1) don't act selfishly
>>> 2) don't act non-selfishly
>>>
>>> Clarify?
>>
>> People should realize that acting 100% selfishly is good when and only
>> when every member of the group is also acting 100% selfishly. And the
>> only way to do this is to find the common preferences of the group.
>
> Do you mean to say that if someone else acts non-selfishly, then I have to change my way of life?
I think you're talking about society. I'm only talking about the
people that you choose to be in the presence of.
> I think that's wrong. Their lifestyle isn't my problem or responsibility. In general I can keep living my way regardless of how they live. I can be self-focussed.
Even in a group that you choose to be in the presence of?
>>
>> or
>>
>> People should realize that getting 100% of what they want is good when
>> and only when every member of the group is also getting 100% of what
>> they want. And the only way to do this is to find the common
>> preferences of the group.
>
> Suppose I get what I want, but someone does something dumb so he's not getting 100% of what he wants. Now you're saying my life sucks, I have a big problem, I need to change, I shouldn't do this?
Oh. I was mainly thinking of one's own children or other adults who
know about how to find common preferences. So I'll rephrase.
People should realize that getting 100% of what they want is good and
always possible no matter if they are alone or with other people.
Each person is responsible for getting what he wants while also
responsible for not coercing others to not get what they want. In this
way, each person is acting 100% selfishly.
In the case of children, their parents [or other care givers] are also
responsible for helping them get 100% of what they want.
Also, sometimes changing one's own wants [through self-persuasion] is
a way to find common preferences. And persuading others to change
their wants is a way to find common preferences.
-- Rami
Elliot Temple
That's not precise enough.
I may be standing near someone at some time, but not need to coordinate most of my activities with them.
>
>
>> For many things, the relevant "group" is me, myself and I.
>
> Yes. In which case common preferences don't matter because there is
> only your preferences.
It does matter, because my ideas, including preferences, can conflict with each other.
>
>
>>>>> And it is ok for someone to decide not to interact with a group and
>>>>> instead to be alone. And in this case, he can act selfishly without
>>>>> negatively affecting others.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we need a new term for this. Something that we can use instead
>>>>> of selfish and altruistic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you changed your mind, why should other people change their minds?
>>>>>
>>>>> People should realize that (1) acting selfishly [in a group setting]
>>>>> hurts others which can lead to hurting one's self and (2) acting
>>>>> altruistically hurts one's self and often hurts others.
>>>>
>>>> I read this as:
>>>>
>>>> 1) don't act selfishly
>>>> 2) don't act non-selfishly
>>>>
>>>> Clarify?
>>>
>>> People should realize that acting 100% selfishly is good when and only
>>> when every member of the group is also acting 100% selfishly. And the
>>> only way to do this is to find the common preferences of the group.
>>
>> Do you mean to say that if someone else acts non-selfishly, then I have to change my way of life?
>
> I think you're talking about society. I'm only talking about the
> people that you choose to be in the presence of.
Physical presence? Why?
>> I think that's wrong. Their lifestyle isn't my problem or responsibility. In general I can keep living my way regardless of how they live. I can be self-focussed.
>
> Even in a group that you choose to be in the presence of?
Right. For example the other people at the restaurant where I'm eating: their lifestyle isn't my problem or responsibility.
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> People should realize that getting 100% of what they want is good when
>>> and only when every member of the group is also getting 100% of what
>>> they want. And the only way to do this is to find the common
>>> preferences of the group.
>>
>> Suppose I get what I want, but someone does something dumb so he's not getting 100% of what he wants. Now you're saying my life sucks, I have a big problem, I need to change, I shouldn't do this?
>
> Oh. I was mainly thinking of one's own children or other adults who
> know about how to find common preferences. So I'll rephrase.
>
> People should realize that getting 100% of what they want is good and
> always possible no matter if they are alone or with other people.
>
> Each person is responsible for getting what he wants while also
> responsible for not coercing others to not get what they want. In this
> way, each person is acting 100% selfishly.
What if someone is coerced by my use of free speech?
Does his flaw hold me hostage so I can't speak my mind? Or may I speak even though he finds it coercive?
>
> In the case of children, their parents [or other care givers] are also
> responsible for helping them get 100% of what they want.
That's a special case because the parents have responsibilities far beyond the regular responsibilities fellow citizens have to each other (e.g. to share public sidewalks and walk around each other).
Rami Rustom
So the moral way is selfishness + wisdom[see below].
>>
>>
>>> For many things, the relevant "group" is me, myself and I.
>>
>> Yes. In which case common preferences don't matter because there is
>> only your preferences.
>
> It does matter, because my ideas, including preferences, can conflict with each other.
Ah self-coercion. See below.
>>
>>
>>>>>> And it is ok for someone to decide not to interact with a group and
>>>>>> instead to be alone. And in this case, he can act selfishly without
>>>>>> negatively affecting others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we need a new term for this. Something that we can use instead
>>>>>> of selfish and altruistic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you changed your mind, why should other people change their minds?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People should realize that (1) acting selfishly [in a group setting]
>>>>>> hurts others which can lead to hurting one's self and (2) acting
>>>>>> altruistically hurts one's self and often hurts others.
>>>>>
>>>>> I read this as:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) don't act selfishly
>>>>> 2) don't act non-selfishly
>>>>>
>>>>> Clarify?
>>>>
>>>> People should realize that acting 100% selfishly is good when and only
>>>> when every member of the group is also acting 100% selfishly. And the
>>>> only way to do this is to find the common preferences of the group.
>>>
>>> Do you mean to say that if someone else acts non-selfishly, then I have to change my way of life?
>>
>> I think you're talking about society. I'm only talking about the
>> people that you choose to be in the presence of.
>
> Physical presence? Why?
Yes physical presence doesn't matter. See below.
>>> I think that's wrong. Their lifestyle isn't my problem or responsibility. In general I can keep living my way regardless of how they live. I can be self-focussed.
>>
>> Even in a group that you choose to be in the presence of?
>
> Right. For example the other people at the restaurant where I'm eating: their lifestyle isn't my problem or responsibility.
So the moral way is to be self-focussed + have wisdom[see below].
>
>
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> People should realize that getting 100% of what they want is good when
>>>> and only when every member of the group is also getting 100% of what
>>>> they want. And the only way to do this is to find the common
>>>> preferences of the group.
>>>
>>> Suppose I get what I want, but someone does something dumb so he's not getting 100% of what he wants. Now you're saying my life sucks, I have a big problem, I need to change, I shouldn't do this?
>>
>> Oh. I was mainly thinking of one's own children or other adults who
>> know about how to find common preferences. So I'll rephrase.
>>
>> People should realize that getting 100% of what they want is good and
>> always possible no matter if they are alone or with other people.
>>
>> Each person is responsible for getting what he wants while also
>> responsible for not coercing others to not get what they want. In this
>> way, each person is acting 100% selfishly.
>
> What if someone is coerced by my use of free speech?
Can that be considered self-coercion?
> Does his flaw hold me hostage so I can't speak my mind? Or may I speak even though he finds it coercive?
Absolutely you can speak. He is responsible for his own thoughts and emotions.
>>
>> In the case of children, their parents [or other care givers] are also
>> responsible for helping them get 100% of what they want.
>
> That's a special case because the parents have responsibilities far beyond the regular responsibilities fellow citizens have to each other (e.g. to share public sidewalks and walk around each other).
Ok taking the special case of children out for now.
The moral way is:
(1) Each person should act 100% selfishly, i.e. according to their own
preferences.
(2) Each person should make sure that their preferences do not
conflict with each other [this is self-coercion].
(3) If somebody chooses to interact with others, he should make
reasonable attempts to find their common preferences. This could
include self-persuasion which results in changing one's own
preferences. And it could include persuasion which could result in
others changing their preferences. [I'm not including the people that
you happen to be next to at a restaurant or on the street. In this
case, see (4).]
(4) Each person is 100% responsible for their own thoughts and
emotions and 100% not responsible for anybody else's thoughts and
emotions.
Hows that?
-- Rami
Elliot Temple
yes
>
>> Does his flaw hold me hostage so I can't speak my mind? Or may I speak even though he finds it coercive?
>
> Absolutely you can speak. He is responsible for his own thoughts and emotions.
>
>
>>>
>>> In the case of children, their parents [or other care givers] are also
>>> responsible for helping them get 100% of what they want.
>>
>> That's a special case because the parents have responsibilities far beyond the regular responsibilities fellow citizens have to each other (e.g. to share public sidewalks and walk around each other).
>
> Ok taking the special case of children out for now.
>
> The moral way is:
>
> (1) Each person should act 100% selfishly, i.e. according to their own
> preferences.
>
> (2) Each person should make sure that their preferences do not
> conflict with each other [this is self-coercion].
>
> (3) If somebody chooses to interact with others, he should make
> reasonable attempts to find their common preferences. This could
> include self-persuasion which results in changing one's own
> preferences. And it could include persuasion which could result in
> others changing their preferences. [I'm not including the people that
> you happen to be next to at a restaurant or on the street. In this
> case, see (4).]
>
> (4) Each person is 100% responsible for their own thoughts and
> emotions and 100% not responsible for anybody else's thoughts and
> emotions.
>
> Hows that?
In general when we interact with others, we should follow well known rules of cooperation such as walking around each other on the sidewalk, using traffic lights, and so on.
We only have to go beyond that, in general, when:
1) there is an exceptional situation
2) our cooperation is greater, e.g. we work on a joint project
Rami Rustom
Ok. What about when traffic lights were new to the world?
> We only have to go beyond that, in general, when:
>
> 1) there is an exceptional situation
Like when traffic lights were invented?