3 ms·
Cars aren’t hypothetical. They’re real. You are deliberately misunderstanding and exaggerating my point to prove, well, I don’t even know what you’re trying to
by shortcake27 3y ago
Cars aren’t hypothetical. They’re real. You are deliberately misunderstanding and exaggerating my point to prove, well, I don’t even know what you’re trying to prove.
First, my point is about optimising for happiness. Running out onto a road without thinking has nothing to do with happiness.
Secondly, the risk profile between these two scenarios is completely different. In one, the OP _might_ have a slight difficulty in finding employment in the future (we actually don’t know, because there are so many variables). In the other, the OP is likely to be dead or seriously injured (which is something we actually know). These scenarios are not comparable.
- legalizemoney 3y agoI meant it earnestly! If I misunderstood, I have one other guy in here who made the same mistake. Your original comment reads like you’re against the concept of considering unpleasant counterfactuals in general.
- hnfong 3y agoPretty sure OP considered the counterfactual and determined it was such a low probability, the alternative utility gain too low, that it shouldn't matter in the pursuit of happiness. Taking calculated risks isn't recklessness.
- shortcake27 3y agoFair point, apologies I took your comment the wrong way. As the sibling of this comment mentions, that wasn’t what I meant, but can see how my original comment left room for interpretation.