4 ms·

> I don't want to be this way. I just seem to have a preference for it. Aren't you being a sort of "preference fatalist"? Do you think it's impossible to chan

> I don't want to be this way. I just seem to have a preference for it. Aren't you being a sort of "preference fatalist"? Do you think it's impossible to change preferences? Maybe a good place to start would be to research people who have changed preferences. I think motivation is not the mythical black box that oms people ascribe to. We're motivated by cognitive processes and experiences. If we expose ourselves to different experiences and try to see value in different things, our brain can adapt and start saying "Okay, this thing I didn't find motivating is getting motivating!" -- motivation is built by yourself. I call this concept "freedom of utility" -- you're free to choose what to care about; although of course there are limits to the flexibility of some of our instincts for various reasons related to just being limited, finite beings overall. (I'm speaking of the general issue of changing values and changing your mind -- hopefully not too personal) In your case, I think at a level you've already adopted different values (which I think is admirable and necessary for humans to achieve a good existence), but you're finding it hard reconciling your various intuitions and various rational thoughts. I think it's a slow process, but we should let the truth and what we ultimately find genuinely best win -- discuss it with other people, think about it, test its consequences (in real life or thought), this is how you change your mind.

kypro 4y ago
> Aren't you being a sort of "preference fatalist"? Do you think it's impossible to change preferences? I've changed my mind on a lot of things. Big things too. I've always enjoyed debating subjects too because I think there is often value in changing minds and having your own mind changed. There are also things which are provably true and preferences. It's really the latter that I see no point in changing people's minds about. I think you basically have two end states to civilisation, the first being a single world government which sets laws to maximise the happiness and wellbeing for the average individual in a society. Or the second option is that you accept the diversity of human opinion and have lots of smaller states where those states can adopt their own unique laws that maximise the happiness and wellbeing of that unique community. I'd argue neither is stable because you either have competing states with different laws or a single government with lots of unhappy subjects. But just as an example here, you're not going to make the world a more peaceful or happy place by forcing the middle-east to be pro-LGBTQ even if it's the "right" thing. Here in the UK we see this all the time. We import people with different ideas form our own then create conflict by telling them they're wrong for thinking the way they do. And for what? Perhaps some times something can be so clearly wrong that it warrants intervention, but in this case if someone who's LGBTQ wants to leave that community for somewhere more LGBTQ friendly they can do that and everyone is happy. I'm not going to get into a fight with a Muslim about why their beliefs are wrong. I guess my position is just that the majority of violence and unhappiness in this world comes from people either believing their view is the correct view and that others should share it, or that someone else view is wrong and that they need to be stopped. All the insults on Twitter. All the people the state locks in cages. All the bombs drop for not following democratic values. I don't want any part of it. For the most part so long as they do so peacefully I'm happy for people to live however like, believing whatever they like.

kypro 4y ago

> Aren't you being a sort of "preference fatalist"? Do you think it's impossible to change preferences? I've changed my mind on a lot of things. Big things too. I've always enjoyed debating subjects too because I think there is often value in changing minds and having your own mind changed. There are also things which are provably true and preferences. It's really the latter that I see no point in changing people's minds about. I think you basically have two end states to civilisation, the first being a single world government which sets laws to maximise the happiness and wellbeing for the average individual in a society. Or the second option is that you accept the diversity of human opinion and have lots of smaller states where those states can adopt their own unique laws that maximise the happiness and wellbeing of that unique community. I'd argue neither is stable because you either have competing states with different laws or a single government with lots of unhappy subjects. But just as an example here, you're not going to make the world a more peaceful or happy place by forcing the middle-east to be pro-LGBTQ even if it's the "right" thing. Here in the UK we see this all the time. We import people with different ideas form our own then create conflict by telling them they're wrong for thinking the way they do. And for what? Perhaps some times something can be so clearly wrong that it warrants intervention, but in this case if someone who's LGBTQ wants to leave that community for somewhere more LGBTQ friendly they can do that and everyone is happy. I'm not going to get into a fight with a Muslim about why their beliefs are wrong. I guess my position is just that the majority of violence and unhappiness in this world comes from people either believing their view is the correct view and that others should share it, or that someone else view is wrong and that they need to be stopped. All the insults on Twitter. All the people the state locks in cages. All the bombs drop for not following democratic values. I don't want any part of it. For the most part so long as they do so peacefully I'm happy for people to live however like, believing whatever they like.