Thanks for sharing, Mo. I liked that point to understand @Bob Fischerās general orientation better. At the same time, I did not find it that insightful. I think it makes a point while providing very little argument for it, and I do not seem to agree with the sentiment about the impact of moral views on cause prioritisation. It makes sense to have 4 years with an impact of 0 throughout a career of 44 years to increase the impact of the remaining 40 years (= 44 ā 4) by more than 10 % (= 4ā40). In this case, the impact would not be 0 āin most circumstancesā (40/ā44 = 90.9 % > 50 %). So I very much agree with a literal interpretation of Bobās statement. However, I feel like it conveys that moral views, and cause prioritisation are less important than what they actually are.
Thanks for sharing, Mo. I liked that point to understand @Bob Fischerās general orientation better. At the same time, I did not find it that insightful. I think it makes a point while providing very little argument for it, and I do not seem to agree with the sentiment about the impact of moral views on cause prioritisation. It makes sense to have 4 years with an impact of 0 throughout a career of 44 years to increase the impact of the remaining 40 years (= 44 ā 4) by more than 10 % (= 4ā40). In this case, the impact would not be 0 āin most circumstancesā (40/ā44 = 90.9 % > 50 %). So I very much agree with a literal interpretation of Bobās statement. However, I feel like it conveys that moral views, and cause prioritisation are less important than what they actually are.