|
| Thread: I Gave Up Video Games |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted January 15, 2013 08:04 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:06, 15 Jan 2013.
|
@mvass
From my perspective that is an accurate assessment. The thing is that nobody does a full, deliberative analysis of their values and preferences every time they have to make a decision. It's just not possible. Thankfully we've evolved cognitive shortcuts to help us out. Built into that is the expectation that if something was a good decision before, it probably is a good decision again. That's pretty much what leads to habitual behavior. Unfortunately that kind of thinking (or lack thereof, actually) neglects the reality that when the situation has changed (or the decision maker has changed), a better choice may be available. To use the specific example at hand, a person who spends a lot of time catering to what other people view as "time well spent" may be doing so because they think they value it (either because they did in the past, or because they're taking it as axiomatic because society has conditioned them to do so). Upon reflection (a deliberative analysis of what they really feel), they find however that the amount of time they are spending on this behavior is not commensurate with the actual amount of value they're getting out of it - either their values have changed and they didn't realize it or they never had the value to begin with and only thought they did because they were conditioned to believe it by external agents. Our values change constantly and we don't always realize it because we do tend toward habitual behaviors. I for one believe that one definition of unhappiness could be a misalignment between what we think our values are and what they actually are, and therefore tending to choose behaviors that don't actually bring us the level of value we expect them to. Unfortunately habitual behaviors that lead to unhappiness are hard to break, even if we recognize them as a source of unhappiness, as in the case the of the OP's problem. Going against evolution is a steep hill to climb. 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2013 08:25 PM |
|
|
Corribus,
what I want to say is, that this is comparable with the philosophy of determinism. In the end, no matter what anyone does, is based on a system of preferences, provided there are alternatives. That, however, is trivial, because the question is how that would look like (or how it works with everyone).
So, sure, if a person does something - anything - you have good reason to assume said person did it because it would seem to be "best" or of top value at that point, whether that value is negative or positive.
However, that doesn't say anything at all - except that you can conclude, IF a person is doing something - let's say killing young blonde females in their spare time -, it's because said person VALUES what they are doing.
However, in this case we would assume that said person is mentally disturbed - because said person seems to have the wrong values and priorities. In that case we would NOT assume said person had a choice ... otherwise they were responsible.
So to summarize:
1) There seem to be choices/values/decisions that are FORCED/NOT VOLUNTARY and therefore the value-thing doesn't really fit and
2) It doesn't really help to assume a risk/gain analysis for decisions, because we don't know the data that are used for the decisions, nor, with a look on 1), but also generally, what is considered risk and what gain.
We can easily say that for a suicide victim life holds a very low value, probably due to a subjective unbearable suffering. In fact, living on holds the lowest value possible - but that's as obvious as trivial, right?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 15, 2013 09:00 PM |
|
|
Well, I did already say that it was sort of a trick question, because value was built into the definition of decision making. The whole issue was a response to the OP's recognition that playing video games was a "waste of time", even though he engages in this activity all the time. There's a logical disconnect there. If he does it all the time and enjoys it, he cannot actually view it as a waste of time. Otherwise he wouldn't be doing it, because behavioral choices are always made based on what is perceived to be higher value. Therefore the reason he's actually calling it a waste of time is because he recognizes that this is the way someone else might view it, or because he realizes there is something higher value he could be doing but he lacks the self-control to put off his immediate urges for the sake of a better reward later on.
Quote:
However, in this case we would assume that said person is mentally disturbed - because said person seems to have the wrong values and priorities. In that case we would NOT assume said person had a choice ... otherwise they were responsible.
Of course they are responsible. Of course they had a choice. Why wouldn't they?
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted January 15, 2013 09:05 PM |
|
|
I didn't read through all the replies, sorry. I just want to know if you gave your thoughts in regard to how a person avoids spending time on something he doesn't value, if he doesn't value spending time on any possible action.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2013 09:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I for one believe that one definition of unhappiness could be a misalignment between what we think our values are and what they actually are, and therefore tending to choose behaviors that don't actually bring us the level of value we expect them to.
or maybe unhappiness comes from the only fact of giving values?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 15, 2013 09:50 PM |
|
|
@offs
That's the whole point. If he's spending time on it, he must value it to some degree, or at least he perceives that he does or should. It may be that he values it less than other potential endpoints, which is why he's considering it a "waste of time" but clearly he values it more than indulging in the costs (labor, time, whatever) that it would take to achieve those endpoints. In chemical parlance - just because a process is thermodynamically favorable doesn't mean it is kinetically so. Which is to say, even though a system may be better off in another state, sometimes it takes so much energy to get there that it never happens.
That said, the question remains: how do you change someone's behavior to something that you perceive would be higher value (to them). Fundamentally you can't force a person to choose another behavior. You can coerce them into engaging in a certain behavior by removing all other options (committing to a mental institution, for example), but that's only useful for some extreme circumstances. So to help someone choose another behavior, you have to either
(a) change the way they perceive the value of the behavior you want them to change;
(b) change the way they perceive the value of the behavior you want them to change to;
(c) remove or mitigate the obstacle(s) toward the alternate behavior; or
(d) impose an obstacle toward the current behavior or otherwise make it less desirable.
There may be other ways, but those seem to me to be the most obvious.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2013 10:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, I did already say that it was sort of a trick question, because value was built into the definition of decision making. The whole issue was a response to the OP's recognition that playing video games was a "waste of time", even though he engages in this activity all the time. There's a logical disconnect there. If he does it all the time and enjoys it, he cannot actually view it as a waste of time. Otherwise he wouldn't be doing it, because behavioral choices are always made based on what is perceived to be higher value. Therefore the reason he's actually calling it a waste of time is because he recognizes that this is the way someone else might view it, or because he realizes there is something higher value he could be doing but he lacks the self-control to put off his immediate urges for the sake of a better reward later on.
It's just like it was (still is) with the monks who have sinful thoughts or even engage in sinful behaviour and afterwards start to whip themselves or confess for an hour. It's a simple CONTRADICTION of INEQUAL values (one is rational, one is biological).
And CONTRADICTION of values is where the system stops working/is what the problem is here. HOWEVER, it doesn't have to do anything with SELF-CONTROL, because it's simply TWO VALUES IN COMPETITION.
Quote:
Quote:
However, in this case we would assume that said person is mentally disturbed - because said person seems to have the wrong values and priorities. In that case we would NOT assume said person had a choice ... otherwise they were responsible.
Of course they are responsible. Of course they had a choice. Why wouldn't they?
Because oftentimes the law simply says they are not responsible (couldn't differentiate between right and wrong). Which would technically mean, they HAD a choice, but between two (or more) VALID options.
In any case
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 15, 2013 11:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's just like it was (still is) with the monks who have sinful thoughts or even engage in sinful behaviour and afterwards start to whip themselves or confess for an hour. It's a simple CONTRADICTION of INEQUAL values (one is rational, one is biological).
And CONTRADICTION of values is where the system stops working/is what the problem is here. HOWEVER, it doesn't have to do anything with SELF-CONTROL, because it's simply TWO VALUES IN COMPETITION.
I don't know about you, but I would define self-control as the ability to suppress biological preferences in order to attain rational ones. Therefore it's relevant indeed.
Quote:
Because oftentimes the law simply says they are not responsible (couldn't differentiate between right and wrong). Which would technically mean, they HAD a choice, but between two (or more) VALID options.
I understand this is a legal distinction, but I'm considering it on a more philosophical level.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2013 11:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's just like it was (still is) with the monks who have sinful thoughts or even engage in sinful behaviour and afterwards start to whip themselves or confess for an hour. It's a simple CONTRADICTION of INEQUAL values (one is rational, one is biological).
And CONTRADICTION of values is where the system stops working/is what the problem is here. HOWEVER, it doesn't have to do anything with SELF-CONTROL, because it's simply TWO VALUES IN COMPETITION.
I don't know about you, but I would define self-control as the ability to suppress biological preferences in order to attain rational ones. Therefore it's relevant indeed.
That's weighing one value against the other, saying that the rational one is better. Factually, though, it's simply two competing values: it IS relevant, but there is no telling what is better - or more valuable.
Quote:
Quote:
Because oftentimes the law simply says they are not responsible (couldn't differentiate between right and wrong). Which would technically mean, they HAD a choice, but between two (or more) VALID options.
I understand this is a legal distinction, but I'm considering it on a more philosophical level.
Okay.
What about sex change? Choice? Sure. But from a value point of view it seems that change may be the only option, really. So maybe with serial killers it's the only REAL option as well. No choice. No weighing of values. No way out...
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 16, 2013 12:58 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 01:00, 16 Jan 2013.
|
Quote:
I don't know about you, but I would define self-control as the ability to suppress biological preferences in order to attain rational ones. Therefore it's relevant indeed.
what is a biological preference and why isn't it rational?
(amazing how examples in this forum are always about people wanting to kill babies or something like that  )
|
| |
|
|
