Khanivore's Shortform

post by Khanivore · 2020-11-10T20:32:59.351Z · LW · GW · 13 comments


Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Khanivore · 2020-11-10T11:18:48.587Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Money doesn't buy happiness, it buys opportunity. It buys a lot more opportunities for a chance at happiness. 

comment by Viliam · 2020-11-10T16:12:26.426Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

There are no guaranteed ways to achieve happiness. If you believe incorrectly that X will make you happy, you may spend time and energy pursuing X only to find out it didn't work. But even then, if you achieve your X's faster, you get more attempts.

Advantages of money:

Less time and energy spent paying your bills, which means more time and energy available to do X. If you need to buy something, you can. If you need other people's help, you can pay them to help you.

Disadvantages of money:

You attract all kinds of people who want to extract money from you: fake friends, scammers, extortionists. (In theory, this is only a problem when other people know you have money. In practice, I suspect there are fake friends / scammers / extortionists who specialize on finding rich people who try to be inconspicuous, so you never know.) You need lawyers and bodyguards to deflect occassional attacks; certain things are more dangerous for you than for average people. You generally can't trust people and their feedback, which is a problem when you need to actually learn something.

comment by Khanivore · 2020-11-10T16:19:27.449Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I believe that a lot of what you have said is accurate but does not discount the original post. If realistically looked at, it is still a truth that money does buy more opportunities to find happiness. Whether its giving to others, or the ability to have more free time, etc. It does not mean you will find personal happiness. Nor does it mean that every person needs the $ at all. Over all its a mindset I guess, but if money was not an issue at all, and nobody knew about your wealth at all for instance wouldn't half your concerns disappear? What if nobody was aware of your wealth?

comment by Viliam · 2020-11-11T11:39:19.185Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Sure, I would prefer to deal with problems of having too much money, rather than not having enough money. At least, with too much money you can hire people to help you, and you have enough free time to focus on the problems.

I don't think there is a reliable way to keep wealth secret. If it is legally obtained, you need to declare it in your tax form... and I don't trust the government's ability to keep secrets. You buy something expensive, people may notice. Heck, you stop having a daily job, people may notice. But there could be a sweet spot somewhere between "being an average person" and "being so rich that criminals start paying attention".

It also depends on what lifestyle you want. I suppose that rich people have all kinds of activities where they signal their wealth to each other, and maintain social contact with each other -- you cannot do this and keep your wealth secret at the same time. However, you could go for something like "middle class, except with extra options, and all inconvenience removed".

Probably a good way to achieve it would be to create a shell company... and get employed by it. Which would make you your own boss, except no outsider would know. You do whatever you want, whenever you want, and if people ask you about your job, you have a boring answer. If you need to spend big money, officially the company pays it, not you. You could even keep the secret from your friends and your partners (because they sometimes become ex-friends and ex-partners).

Sounds like I have a plan, now all I need is the money. :D 

comment by Khanivore · 2020-11-10T16:31:09.374Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The gap in human intelligence and rational/critical thinking seems to be ever widening. Politics aside I find it interesting the drastic differences in human cognitive behavior. I wonder if compared to other animals that we consider intelligent if the spectrum is so large?

comment by Khanivore · 2020-11-10T16:47:46.118Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Atheism and any Organized Religion are about as equal in sense, or lack there of. Rationally is there any other logical way of thinking that isnt agnostic? Even if it's agnostic theism / atheism ? Would not logic tell every single person to be agnostic in the end? Is there anything wrong with you saying you simply do not know and identifying as agnostic?

comment by Khanivore · 2020-11-10T17:13:15.304Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Evil is necessary for good to exist. Sadness necessary for happiness to exist. Wars create progress. I wish neither Evil, Sadness, or War ever existed, but it is true that darkness must exist for the light to exist. 

comment by AllAmericanBreakfast · 2020-11-11T06:49:11.547Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Hi Khanivore. You are new, and also you are welcome to post anything here.

One thing you'll find is that people will engage with and appreciate/criticize your posts. I don't want to alienate you by criticizing too harshly or too soon, because I think this community has a lot to offer for everyone, and I'm interested to see what you'll make of it. However, you may find this site more interesting if you get some engagement, so I'm offering that.

Your post is a good example of cached thoughts. [LW · GW]

One thing that seems evil is the starvation, neglect, abuse, torture, murder, and conscription into armies of children. One thing that seems good is the self-actualization of children. I am a teacher of children, and I have tried for ten years to help them self-actualize.

I don't think that evil perpetrated on children is necessary for the good of children.

One thing you can do is argue with me and make a genuine attempt to persuade. Another is to steelman the counterargument. What's the strongest argument you can make that evil isn't necessary for good to exist? Can you convince yourself of the contrary,  just for the sake of your own edification.

There are other things you can do, but those are a couple suggestions that you might find valuable.

comment by Khanivore · 2020-11-11T15:15:38.995Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Let me try to reply here step by step. It was a cached thought in a sense of what I think you are saying, which is why I added it to my own shortform - I thought, as an idea, as it's hard for me to keep track of my ideas. What I meant was evil as an ideology, or as an entity in a way. We would have no idea what good was if there was no opposite end of the spectrum. Evil exists, and in that sense it helps to understand "what is good" ?  Maybe I am not wording it correctly. If there were only good, how would you even know what was "good" or "evil" ? Do you get what I am trying to say? And as unfortunate as some things like war can be, they do a lot of the time lead to progress. One of the hardest parts about war or evil is also trying to tread the boundaries of ethics. The US for instance kills innocent people all the time in the name of the greater good. Kids die, innocent people die, and we write it off as " for the greater good" . But rationally evil - like taking a life, even if for a just cause , allows for good. The taking of any life is evil in a sense, but has allowed for good historically as weird as that sounds. It's the whole notion of war. Furthermore, I see AI being discussed here often and rationally if you're going to create a true AI, evil and good will come up often, and how would you even begin to develop true AI without explaining the spectrum of good and evil? They exist only because of one another. I am actually pretty certain my original post was me paraphrasing something I was listening to of Lex Fridman or Eric Weinstein. Pain causes revolutions! Evil has lead to good in many roundabout ways.  I will find the whole part if I can.... If it was up to me "evil" would not exist at all, but it does exist, and it exists only because we have a spectrum. YING and YANG. Maybe this is why some people find it hard to believe in GOD, because its like why does evil exist at all? You can only appreciate the good because of the evil.

comment by AllAmericanBreakfast · 2020-11-11T18:23:34.518Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

There are a few clearly true statements that get compressed in your original statement, which can then be used to suggest wrong statements. This is an equivocation.

One question is “does our experience of evil or suffering inform our moral judgments?”

Another is “have people fought against evil and won?”

A third is “can a lesser wrong be acceptable in pursuit of a greater good?”

A fourth is something like “will our total human experience of evil and suffering prove so useful in aligning superintelligent AI that it is a net positive?”

A fifth is “does even the most extreme, straightforward examples of evil and suffering have any side benefits, despite being heavily net negative?”

Again, it’s fine to babble, but the culture here is that you need to clarify what question your asking. Then argue it persuasively to the best of your ability. Or try arguing the opposite, just to get clarity. Precision is a virtue.

I can’t spend time to reply any more to introduce you to the site’s culture. But I think you might benefit from a philosophy class.

comment by Khanivore · 2020-11-12T13:55:01.718Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I took Philosophy in college. I was not trying to be ambiguous , I get what you are saying though.