3 ms·
If one can absolutely prioritize their “wants” (no “want” has equal rank with any other), then any choice between two of them is simple: choose the higher ranke
by tzot 3y ago
If one can absolutely prioritize their “wants” (no “want” has equal rank with any other), then any choice between two of them is simple: choose the higher ranked and “sacrifice” the lower one, right?
- ThrustVectoring 3y agoHow do you resolve a choice between poorly fulfilling a higher-ranked want and perfectly fulfilling a lower-ranked one?
- tzot 3y agoIn the context of an absolute ranking system, the choice is to act towards the higher-ranked want vs the lower-ranked want, so the resolution is simple: the higher-ranked wins. If one values completion over incompleteness, then one can prioritize that want over all (or many) others.
- ThrustVectoring 3y agoThis, uhhh, this seems like a good argument against using an absolute ranking system. Suppose you want to eat and have money. If you rank eating first, you'd be willing to pay a million dollars for a can of tuna. If you rank money first, you'd be willing to starve to death so long as someone offered you a single dollar.
- tzot 3y agoYes, ranked wants with artificially restricted phrasing have exactly this problem you describe.
- datadrivenangel 3y agoGuestimate the available resources, and maybe do some of both? But this is a hard choice. Do you want to try and fail to be a rockstar, or become a moderately successful software engineer who will be wealthy and have a stable career. The question is what aspects of each want you actually want?
- PeterisP 3y agoIt's trickier than that because often those "wants" aren't discrete and undividable, and ranking A over B often doesn't imply that you'd accept getting zero of B until A is fully fulfilled, rather you are likely to prefer sacrificing some A to get some B even if A is a priority and you'd prefer it to have a larger "share of fulfilment" than B.