5 ms·

Most of my own life is dedicated to growth both domestically and in my career. I can tell you that I don't learn even close to the rate my own children do.

rowanG077 4y ago
Then I think it's time to rethink your approach. Maybe it would be good to join a university and get a few more degrees. A career is antithetical to personal growth. A family is antithetical to personal growth. They cost way too much time.
- ryanklee 4y ago
  That is a very narrow and counterintuitive view of personal growth. What utility function underlies it? Personhood is vast and mysterious. It commonly encompasses engagements with many domains that compete for one's time. Often, the values of these domains are not mappable or comparable. We are all of us tangled by wicked and wild problems, shooting from the hip, in the dark, at moving targets which we aren't even sure exist. Given the complications, I find it very dubious to say that family and career are thieves of time. Much of the profound value of my own time and the core of my growth is driven by taking these parts of my life as seriously as I can.
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    Having a family and having a career are without a shadow of doubt thieves of time from the perspective of personal growth. I'm not saying you won't learn anything by having either. But it's a side effect, nothing more. All the time spend in your career could have been spend learning most musical instruments. All the time spend with your family could have made you a master mathematician. I'm not saying these are worthwhile choices to make. But if you want to maximize personal growth these are choices you should make. The fruit of youth is that you actually are encouraged, and in the position, to maximize personal growth. Of course it's a self full-filling prophecy children actually do grow the most. That doesn't mean children are actually better at it. There are studies that show exactly this for language acquisition. For example: https://core.ac.uk/reader/148309780 https://core.ac.uk/reader/148309780.
    - ryanklee 4y ago
      Again, my point is not that children are faster at learning any given thing, but the total volume of learning is much greater. Further, how is it possible for you to evaluate the quality of personal growth independently from all the nonoverlapping magisteria out of which every every life is composed? When you recommend that someone not have a family or a career because they detract from personal growth, it must be because you have some other metric by which personal growth is measured. Unless you have a simple, reductive utility function, I don't see how that's possible. And if you do have a simple reductive utility function, it's very like incorrect.
      - rowanG077 4y ago
        You claim the volume is large but you have nothing to support that claim. I don't think that's true, based on the study I linked. If an adult can learn a language in a similar amount of time as a child. Then by definition both the child and adult have the same time (which you can use as a direct proxy) for learning anything else. I don't use a specific utility function. Because it doesn't matter what utility function you use. Pursuing maximizing any utility function for the maximum amount of time and effort will in general lead the maximum return if you go about it correctly. Having a family and a career requires spending loads of time on menial task which otherwise could have been used to improve on any specific metric. And, very importantly, are mutually exclusive. You can't maximize your career and your family. Precisely for the same reason.
        ryanklee 4y ago
        How does a study examining a narrow band of learning bear on gross volume of learning? It doesn't at all follow in an obvious way that opportunity cost generalizes like you seem to suggest. It's been observed that as people age, they trade fluid intelligence for crystallized intelligence. One slows down and goes deeper. Regarding my point about utility functions: no, it doesn't matter which you use, because none of them are adequate to the task at hand, which is really just figuring out how to live one's life in the absence of adequate utility functions.
- kbelder 4y ago
  A family can fuel personal growth, as can a career. Focusing on growth in isolation will probably retard you. Think of all the most advanced people you know.

rowanG077 4y ago

Then I think it's time to rethink your approach. Maybe it would be good to join a university and get a few more degrees. A career is antithetical to personal growth. A family is antithetical to personal growth. They cost way too much time.

ryanklee 4y ago
That is a very narrow and counterintuitive view of personal growth. What utility function underlies it? Personhood is vast and mysterious. It commonly encompasses engagements with many domains that compete for one's time. Often, the values of these domains are not mappable or comparable. We are all of us tangled by wicked and wild problems, shooting from the hip, in the dark, at moving targets which we aren't even sure exist. Given the complications, I find it very dubious to say that family and career are thieves of time. Much of the profound value of my own time and the core of my growth is driven by taking these parts of my life as seriously as I can.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  Having a family and having a career are without a shadow of doubt thieves of time from the perspective of personal growth. I'm not saying you won't learn anything by having either. But it's a side effect, nothing more. All the time spend in your career could have been spend learning most musical instruments. All the time spend with your family could have made you a master mathematician. I'm not saying these are worthwhile choices to make. But if you want to maximize personal growth these are choices you should make. The fruit of youth is that you actually are encouraged, and in the position, to maximize personal growth. Of course it's a self full-filling prophecy children actually do grow the most. That doesn't mean children are actually better at it. There are studies that show exactly this for language acquisition. For example: https://core.ac.uk/reader/148309780 https://core.ac.uk/reader/148309780.
  - ryanklee 4y ago
    Again, my point is not that children are faster at learning any given thing, but the total volume of learning is much greater. Further, how is it possible for you to evaluate the quality of personal growth independently from all the nonoverlapping magisteria out of which every every life is composed? When you recommend that someone not have a family or a career because they detract from personal growth, it must be because you have some other metric by which personal growth is measured. Unless you have a simple, reductive utility function, I don't see how that's possible. And if you do have a simple reductive utility function, it's very like incorrect.
    - rowanG077 4y ago
      You claim the volume is large but you have nothing to support that claim. I don't think that's true, based on the study I linked. If an adult can learn a language in a similar amount of time as a child. Then by definition both the child and adult have the same time (which you can use as a direct proxy) for learning anything else. I don't use a specific utility function. Because it doesn't matter what utility function you use. Pursuing maximizing any utility function for the maximum amount of time and effort will in general lead the maximum return if you go about it correctly. Having a family and a career requires spending loads of time on menial task which otherwise could have been used to improve on any specific metric. And, very importantly, are mutually exclusive. You can't maximize your career and your family. Precisely for the same reason.
      - ryanklee 4y ago
        How does a study examining a narrow band of learning bear on gross volume of learning? It doesn't at all follow in an obvious way that opportunity cost generalizes like you seem to suggest. It's been observed that as people age, they trade fluid intelligence for crystallized intelligence. One slows down and goes deeper. Regarding my point about utility functions: no, it doesn't matter which you use, because none of them are adequate to the task at hand, which is really just figuring out how to live one's life in the absence of adequate utility functions.
kbelder 4y ago
A family can fuel personal growth, as can a career. Focusing on growth in isolation will probably retard you. Think of all the most advanced people you know.