ㅤ ㅤ𓆉 𓆇
I immediately answered that question with ‘yes’, didn’t I? Meaning I asserted that it was sustainable.
So this schelling fence doesn’t say that you can’t be blunt, only that you’re sometimes allowed not to be. Designing also has diminishing returns so in reality people will not only optimize aesthetics. I’m not sure what you mean by effectiveness, but me giving my guide certain colors or shapes did not hinder the argument being made. But let’s say for the sake of argument that you are forced to make a choice between accuracy and aesthetics. This schelling fence says that you should choose accuracy since you couldn’t trust any argument if everyone sacrifices accuracy, making it self defeating. Kantian Dark Arts still work.
So things are allowed if they’re sustainable. Visually pleasing things are beautiful. I already said earlier that beautiful things make people happy. I said that the answer resolved positively because it is sustainable. I honestly still don’t understand your criticism. If you were my editor before I posted this, what would you have liked to add or subtract from this sentence?
Why do you say that? Not only does it not self-contradict, it also fills the world with more visually pleasing stuff, making it more beautiful? Does your comment say I shouldn't point these things out? Or would you like me to edit it to say that it's 'doubly allowed' since it does two things? I'm not sure what you're trying to say :(
Intelligence is highly correlated with altruism. This study proposes that it has to do with the fact that intelligent people can afford to lose some resources:
The cost incurred by engaging in unconditional altruism is lower for highly intelligent people than for less intelligent people because they may expect to regain the drained resources. As a result, unconditional altruism can serve as an honest signal of intelligence.
So maybe altruism is just a way of showing off how many resources you can donate without taking a hit and thus having/being able to generate lots of resources makes people more altruistically motivated.
I think you might also find this study interesting:
This study looked at personality trait and personality disorder correlates of self-rated altruism. In two studies over 4,000 adult British managers completed a battery of tests including a ‘bright side’ personality trait measure (HPI); a ‘dark side’/disorders measure (HDS), and a measure of their Motives and Values which included Altruism. The two studies showed similar results revealing that those who were low on Adjustment (Neuroticism) but high on Interpersonal Sensitivity (Agreeableness), Prudence (Conscientiousness) and Inquisitiveness (Openness) were more likely to value Altruism and be motivated to commit altruistic acts which concerns helping others and creating an environment that places emphasis on customer service. Those more interested in “Getting Along” with others were more Altruistic than those more interested in “Getting Ahead” of others. Implications for the selection and management of altruistic people in a business are considered. Limitations and future directions of this research are also noted.
With climate change getting worse by the day we need to switch to sustainable energy sources sooner rather than later. The new Molten salt reactors are small, clean and safe, but still carry the stigma of nuclear energy. Since these reactors (like others) can use old nuclear waste as a fuel source, I suggest we rebrand them to "Nuclear Waste Eaters" and give them (or a company that makes them) a logo in the vein of this quick sketch I made: https://postimg.cc/jWy3PtjJ
Hopefully a rebranding to "thing getting rid of the thing you hate, also did you know it's clean and safe" will get people more motivated for these kinds of energy sources.
It's complicated because I see the idea of a schelling fence as a heuristic in itself. So when I say 'universal' I really mean 'super duper quadruple highly recommended'. (EDIT:) Yes, even for "elites", since I'm extremely uncomfortable making exceptions for certain people without being able to quantify why these people are the exception.
Great comment. I would just like to add that Kant killed/unified Empiricism and Rationalism and after Kant the terms quickly started the fizzle out.
Yes you are technically correct, but in this case (as with most cases) I would like terminology to be universal. Eg I hate it that philosophy, economics and sociology sometimes discover the same things but then name them differently. I would like the term the ingroup uses to be the same as the outgroup uses. As Raemon said:
I didn’t think of ‘what others call us’ as the topic of this post, and think it’s much harder to change.