4 ms·

> If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Normativity of growth also gives all sorts of inefficiencies, diseases and economic problems. > Not only

> If you are not growing, you are declining or dead. Normativity of growth also gives all sorts of inefficiencies, diseases and economic problems. > Not only does the world change under your feet, you need that stimulation just to stay healthy. I partially agree with this. You need to keep updating your model of the world not only because the world is changing under your feet, but also your priors are always guaranteed to suck due to inherent limitedness of human computation. That gives us the normativity of self-transendence, which is not the same thing as growth. It also includes shedding dead weight, deconstructing the not-so-useful, or mere re-organization of the existing. A mere appetite for acquiring stuff, even knowledge, does not make it. The second problem is limiting the framing of the growth within the unit of an individual. Individuals' betterment doesn't sum to the same amount of betterment of the society, in fact it creates tons of waste. A wiser old person's transfer of their skills and perspectives (not propositions, or knowledge) to a younger person would not register with your notion of "personal growth" but nonetheless is a superior betterment at the group level, and thus has a much scalable adaptive value.

wolverine876 4y ago
I think you interpret "growth" in a narrow framework of your perspective. The word means a lot more, and I meant things very different from your interpretation. For example, I wasn't talking about economics at all. Also, that growth (in the sense I mean) is necessary for people to function. They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun. > A wiser old person's transfer of their skills and perspectives (not propositions, or knowledge) to a younger person would not register with your notion of "personal growth" but nonetheless is a superior betterment at the group level, and thus has a much scalable adaptive value. I see the claim but don't see support for it, or why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense).
- acituan 4y ago
  > I think you interpret "growth" in a narrow framework of your perspective. I'd say the same for your premise. Your framework was "growth == better", I tried to demonstrate why that is not adequate, and in certain cases harmful. > They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun And anyone with house plants know that too much of any is equally deadly as too little. > why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense). Simple opportunity cost. An elderly doing a cultural transfer of skills, perspectives and knowledge to their grandkids, neighborhood, junior professionals etc vs. doing their own personal growth things. Don't get me wrong, in this case maybe getting a master's in AI and combining all that with their existing competencies and then doing a culture transfer could be the optimal choice here, but the time and energy cost of the activities pursued has to occupy disparate spaces either way. So no, personal growth at all costs is not the most optimal thing at all times.

wolverine876 4y ago

I think you interpret "growth" in a narrow framework of your perspective. The word means a lot more, and I meant things very different from your interpretation. For example, I wasn't talking about economics at all. Also, that growth (in the sense I mean) is necessary for people to function. They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun. > A wiser old person's transfer of their skills and perspectives (not propositions, or knowledge) to a younger person would not register with your notion of "personal growth" but nonetheless is a superior betterment at the group level, and thus has a much scalable adaptive value. I see the claim but don't see support for it, or why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense).

acituan 4y ago
> I think you interpret "growth" in a narrow framework of your perspective. I'd say the same for your premise. Your framework was "growth == better", I tried to demonstrate why that is not adequate, and in certain cases harmful. > They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun And anyone with house plants know that too much of any is equally deadly as too little. > why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense). Simple opportunity cost. An elderly doing a cultural transfer of skills, perspectives and knowledge to their grandkids, neighborhood, junior professionals etc vs. doing their own personal growth things. Don't get me wrong, in this case maybe getting a master's in AI and combining all that with their existing competencies and then doing a culture transfer could be the optimal choice here, but the time and energy cost of the activities pursued has to occupy disparate spaces either way. So no, personal growth at all costs is not the most optimal thing at all times.