This is an interesting read, but I believe I disagree with the premise. Iâve still upvoted it, however.
I actually DO consider 20!Jay to be a dumber and less ethical person than present-day 30!Jay . And I can only hope 40!Jay is smarter and more ethical than I am. (Using âdumbâ and âsmartâ in the colloquial terms â 20!Jay presumably had just as much IQ as I do, but he was far less knowledgeable and effective, even at pursuing his own goalsâI have every confidence that I could pursue 20!Jayâs goals far better than he could, even though I think 30!Jayâs goals are better.)
This idea with the future and past selves is interesting, but it isnât one I think I share. I donât think 40!Jay has any obligation to 30!Jay . He should consider 30!Jayâs judgement, but overall 40!Jay wins. For the same reason, I consider myself consistent that I donât consider 20!Jayâs wishes to be worth following. What 20!Jay thought is worth taking into consideration as evidence, but does not carry moral weight in and of itself because he thought it.
With one exceptionâI would consider any pledge or promise made by 20!Jay to be, if not absolutely binding, at least fairly significant, in the same way you consider 17!Austinâs commitment to mass to be. The reason the GWWC pledge is lifelong is because it is designed to bind your future self to a value system they may no longer share. I explicitly knew and accepted that when I pledged it. I donât think 40!Jay should be bound absolutely by this pledge, but he should err on the side of keeping it. Perhaps a good metric would be to ask âIf 30!Jay understood what 40!Jay understands now, would HE have signed the pledge?â and then break it only if the answer is no, even if 40!Jay would not sign the pledge again.
Similarly, I believe the case for conservatism is best put the way you didâthe people in the past were just as intellectually capable (Flynn effect notwithstanding) as we are. We shouldnât automatically dismiss their wisdom, just like we should consider our past selves to have valuable insights. But thatâs evidence, as opposed to moral weight. To be fair, Iâm biased hereâthe people of the past believed a lot of things that I donât want to give moral weight today. People fifty years ago believed homosexuality was a form of deviancyâI donât think we owe that perspective any moral weight just because people once thought it. I have taken their wisdom into consideration, dutifully considered the possibility, and determined it to be falseâthatâs the extent I owe them. I can only hope that when I am gone, people will seriously consider my moral views and judge them on their merits. After that, if they choose to ignore them...well, itâs not my world any more, and thatâs their right. Hopefully theyâre smarter than me.
I deeply do not share the intuition that younger versions of me are dumber and/âor less ethical. Not sure how to express this but:
17!Austin had much better focus/âless ADHD (possibly as a result of not having a smartphone all the time), and more ability to work through hard problems
17!Austin read a lot more books
17!Austin was quite good at math
17!Austin picked up new concepts much more quickly, had more fluid intelligence
17!Austin had more slack, ability to try out new things
17!Austin had better empathy for the struggles of young people
This last point is a theme in my all-time favorite book, Enderâs Gameâthat the lives of children and teenagers are real lives, but society kind of systematically underweights their preferences and desires. We stick them into compulsory schooling, deny them the right to vote and the right to work, and prevent them from making their own choices.
I fully believe you when you say that 17!Austin was just as smart and selfless as 27!Austin. The same pattern is not the case for 20!Jay and 30!Jay, including all your points about 17!Austin. (except the one on slack, but 20!Jay did not meaningfully use it)
That said, I donât think weâre actually in disagreement on this. I believe what you say about 17!Austin, and I assume you believe what I say about 20!Jayâneither of us have known each otherâs past selves, so we have no reason to believe that our current selves are wrong about them.
Given that, Iâm curious if there are any specific points in my original comment that you disagree with and why. I think thatâd be a constructive point of discussion. Alternatively, if you agree with what I wrote, but you donât think that is a sufficient argument against what you said, thatâd be interesting to hear about too.
This is an interesting read, but I believe I disagree with the premise. Iâve still upvoted it, however.
I actually DO consider 20!Jay to be a dumber and less ethical person than present-day 30!Jay . And I can only hope 40!Jay is smarter and more ethical than I am. (Using âdumbâ and âsmartâ in the colloquial terms â 20!Jay presumably had just as much IQ as I do, but he was far less knowledgeable and effective, even at pursuing his own goalsâI have every confidence that I could pursue 20!Jayâs goals far better than he could, even though I think 30!Jayâs goals are better.)
This idea with the future and past selves is interesting, but it isnât one I think I share. I donât think 40!Jay has any obligation to 30!Jay . He should consider 30!Jayâs judgement, but overall 40!Jay wins. For the same reason, I consider myself consistent that I donât consider 20!Jayâs wishes to be worth following. What 20!Jay thought is worth taking into consideration as evidence, but does not carry moral weight in and of itself because he thought it.
With one exceptionâI would consider any pledge or promise made by 20!Jay to be, if not absolutely binding, at least fairly significant, in the same way you consider 17!Austinâs commitment to mass to be. The reason the GWWC pledge is lifelong is because it is designed to bind your future self to a value system they may no longer share. I explicitly knew and accepted that when I pledged it. I donât think 40!Jay should be bound absolutely by this pledge, but he should err on the side of keeping it. Perhaps a good metric would be to ask âIf 30!Jay understood what 40!Jay understands now, would HE have signed the pledge?â and then break it only if the answer is no, even if 40!Jay would not sign the pledge again.
Similarly, I believe the case for conservatism is best put the way you didâthe people in the past were just as intellectually capable (Flynn effect notwithstanding) as we are. We shouldnât automatically dismiss their wisdom, just like we should consider our past selves to have valuable insights. But thatâs evidence, as opposed to moral weight. To be fair, Iâm biased hereâthe people of the past believed a lot of things that I donât want to give moral weight today. People fifty years ago believed homosexuality was a form of deviancyâI donât think we owe that perspective any moral weight just because people once thought it. I have taken their wisdom into consideration, dutifully considered the possibility, and determined it to be falseâthatâs the extent I owe them. I can only hope that when I am gone, people will seriously consider my moral views and judge them on their merits. After that, if they choose to ignore them...well, itâs not my world any more, and thatâs their right. Hopefully theyâre smarter than me.
I deeply do not share the intuition that younger versions of me are dumber and/âor less ethical. Not sure how to express this but:
17!Austin had much better focus/âless ADHD (possibly as a result of not having a smartphone all the time), and more ability to work through hard problems
17!Austin read a lot more books
17!Austin was quite good at math
17!Austin picked up new concepts much more quickly, had more fluid intelligence
17!Austin had more slack, ability to try out new things
17!Austin had better empathy for the struggles of young people
This last point is a theme in my all-time favorite book, Enderâs Gameâthat the lives of children and teenagers are real lives, but society kind of systematically underweights their preferences and desires. We stick them into compulsory schooling, deny them the right to vote and the right to work, and prevent them from making their own choices.
I fully believe you when you say that 17!Austin was just as smart and selfless as 27!Austin. The same pattern is not the case for 20!Jay and 30!Jay, including all your points about 17!Austin. (except the one on slack, but 20!Jay did not meaningfully use it)
That said, I donât think weâre actually in disagreement on this. I believe what you say about 17!Austin, and I assume you believe what I say about 20!Jayâneither of us have known each otherâs past selves, so we have no reason to believe that our current selves are wrong about them.
Given that, Iâm curious if there are any specific points in my original comment that you disagree with and why. I think thatâd be a constructive point of discussion. Alternatively, if you agree with what I wrote, but you donât think that is a sufficient argument against what you said, thatâd be interesting to hear about too.