3 ms·
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 langua
by 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 agoHow 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.