4 ms·

They aren't bad, they just shouldn't control you.

jkubicek 5y ago
It's fine to let emotions control you, you just need to be aware that they are and make sure it's the right emotions controlling you. I'm happy to continue living in California because emotionally: * I like the weather * I like living close to mountains and beaches and deserts * I like my house and I'm too lazy to move Rationally I should take the 10% pay cut to go full remote and move to a suburb of Indianapolis.
- bottled_poe 5y ago
  This implies that satisfying your emotional needs is irrational, which is not a healthy frame of mind.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    And yet, it is the rationalist ethos. This was GP's point - many rationalists believe some quite misguided things.
    - pmontra 5y ago
      Maybe GP means that satisfying emotional needs could be the rational choice.
      - Filligree 5y ago
        What would be the point of rationality otherwise? It doesn’t decide your goals, it just helps you reach them. The number of strawmen in this thread is far too high.
    - inkblotuniverse 5y ago
      It isn't the rationalist ethos. Your emotions should obviously guide you, they're a part of you and important evidence. What you described is exactly how rationalists think emotions are best wielded: you look at your/a situation and look at how you feel about it. They're your barometers for whether that which you believe to be your goal is actually your goal. Emotions are misused when you treat factual beliefs as goals: then your emotions get attached to them, in unhealthy and cult-like ways.
    - mst 5y ago
      Many people believe many quite misguided things. Rationality is one approach to trying to believe fewer misguided things. That doesn't make it easy and it doesn't mean that success rates at doing so aren't still wildly variable.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  Speaking as a part-time rationalist, it is not a rationalist position that there is such a thing as "bad goals". At most there may be inconsistent goals. The Utility Function Is Not Up For Grabs https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/the-utility-function-is-not-up-for-grabs https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/the-utility-function-is-not-up... . If under your goals living in California is optimal, then it is rational to live in California. The point of, for instance, EA is not that giving to homeless people in New York when there's starving children in Africa is a bad goal- it's that it's an inconsistent goal when one also professes that human lives have equal value. And when one wants to live by that tenet, then EA offers better routes to optimizing lives saved.
- ByteJockey 5y ago
  > It's fine to let emotions control you, you just need to be aware that they are and make sure it's the right emotions controlling you. Ok, I'll bite. If it's the wrong emotions controlling you, what do you do then? Please don't suggest any course of action that requires you to be in control.

It's fine to let emotions control you, you just need to be aware that they are and make sure it's the right emotions controlling you. I'm happy to continue living in California because emotionally: * I like the weather * I like living close to mountains and beaches and deserts * I like my house and I'm too lazy to move Rationally I should take the 10% pay cut to go full remote and move to a suburb of Indianapolis.

bottled_poe 5y ago
This implies that satisfying your emotional needs is irrational, which is not a healthy frame of mind.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  And yet, it is the rationalist ethos. This was GP's point - many rationalists believe some quite misguided things.
  - pmontra 5y ago
    Maybe GP means that satisfying emotional needs could be the rational choice.
    - Filligree 5y ago
      What would be the point of rationality otherwise? It doesn’t decide your goals, it just helps you reach them. The number of strawmen in this thread is far too high.
  - inkblotuniverse 5y ago
    It isn't the rationalist ethos. Your emotions should obviously guide you, they're a part of you and important evidence. What you described is exactly how rationalists think emotions are best wielded: you look at your/a situation and look at how you feel about it. They're your barometers for whether that which you believe to be your goal is actually your goal. Emotions are misused when you treat factual beliefs as goals: then your emotions get attached to them, in unhealthy and cult-like ways.
  - mst 5y ago
    Many people believe many quite misguided things. Rationality is one approach to trying to believe fewer misguided things. That doesn't make it easy and it doesn't mean that success rates at doing so aren't still wildly variable.
FeepingCreature 5y ago
Speaking as a part-time rationalist, it is not a rationalist position that there is such a thing as "bad goals". At most there may be inconsistent goals. The Utility Function Is Not Up For Grabs https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/the-utility-function-is-not-up-for-grabs https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/the-utility-function-is-not-up... . If under your goals living in California is optimal, then it is rational to live in California. The point of, for instance, EA is not that giving to homeless people in New York when there's starving children in Africa is a bad goal- it's that it's an inconsistent goal when one also professes that human lives have equal value. And when one wants to live by that tenet, then EA offers better routes to optimizing lives saved.
ByteJockey 5y ago
> It's fine to let emotions control you, you just need to be aware that they are and make sure it's the right emotions controlling you. Ok, I'll bite. If it's the wrong emotions controlling you, what do you do then? Please don't suggest any course of action that requires you to be in control.