I was taught to judge the quality of a decision based on the state of information available before the commitment, time, effort, and other resources. I view a decision as the irrevocable commitment of resources and don't view decisions as "reversible" in that all come with a cost. Was the outcome reasonably foreseeable, and was the harm intended, not considered, or part of an effort to stabilize or reverse a dangerous or deteriorating situation?
Challenges remain: how do you help people who are making decisions without regard to the long-term consequences? How do you ensure that the help you provide will actually improve the situation? How do you respect their agency and free will?
I think meditation helps detect self-deception. It enables me to realize how I contribute to my own problems and make life harder for others. One prayer I have found helpful is "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." It reminds me that we are all made from crooked timber
Ego is also a huge part of the equation. When someone else experiences misfortune, thinking they "deserved" it makes us feel better about ourselves, that our superiority allowed us to escape that fate. But when we experience misfortune, we're more likely to blame it on bad luck to soothe our ego.
Overvaluing luck is very risky because it can lead to a defeatist mindset. Most people underestimate how much power they have over their own lives and overestimate how much power other people have — primarily politicians.
I feel there are lot of parallels between life outcomes and monte carlo simulations.
Everyone is dealt with initial position, our actions determine the probability of our direction in path.
Person born poor, might study which increases probability of getting out of poor state. There is still some non zero probability of staying poor even if that person make all good decisions.
Same applies to health and cancer examples.
All everyone can do is increase their probability of reaching their destiny through their actions.
I was taught to judge the quality of a decision based on the state of information available before the commitment, time, effort, and other resources. I view a decision as the irrevocable commitment of resources and don't view decisions as "reversible" in that all come with a cost. Was the outcome reasonably foreseeable, and was the harm intended, not considered, or part of an effort to stabilize or reverse a dangerous or deteriorating situation?
Challenges remain: how do you help people who are making decisions without regard to the long-term consequences? How do you ensure that the help you provide will actually improve the situation? How do you respect their agency and free will?
I think meditation helps detect self-deception. It enables me to realize how I contribute to my own problems and make life harder for others. One prayer I have found helpful is "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." It reminds me that we are all made from crooked timber
Ego is also a huge part of the equation. When someone else experiences misfortune, thinking they "deserved" it makes us feel better about ourselves, that our superiority allowed us to escape that fate. But when we experience misfortune, we're more likely to blame it on bad luck to soothe our ego.
Overvaluing luck is very risky because it can lead to a defeatist mindset. Most people underestimate how much power they have over their own lives and overestimate how much power other people have — primarily politicians.
I feel there are lot of parallels between life outcomes and monte carlo simulations.
Everyone is dealt with initial position, our actions determine the probability of our direction in path.
Person born poor, might study which increases probability of getting out of poor state. There is still some non zero probability of staying poor even if that person make all good decisions.
Same applies to health and cancer examples.
All everyone can do is increase their probability of reaching their destiny through their actions.
Its both their actions and environment.