No Avail | Parenthood Is Moral Quicksand @No_Avail | Uploaded October 2016 | Updated October 2024, 20 hours ago.
Low vs. High time preferences are mutually-cancelling: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference
Neither preference is truth-apt. Nor is any "Happy Middle" sweet-spot preference slightly more truth-apt compared to the extreme ends of the spectrum. There is no truth/falsity dynamic at play here. Not thinly, and certainly not thickly. Both views are purely attitudinal; directed by individuals' affective and conative dispositions. Cognition is the third wheel, if at all present.
It is the multilayered Affective & Conative mental attributes that do all of the decisional work in choosing between Low vs. High time valuation.
Which segways nicely to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_careerism
Whether extreme or moderate, careerist lifestyles can only be chosen by the individual, but are unflinchingly projected onto impressionable youth through parental fear tactics or other more elaborate forms of psychological intimidation.
Highly applicable to the above: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_and_Type_B_personality_theory
Whenever a Type A parent [with something to prove] has power over a Type B child [with little or nothing to prove] any future returns on the child's [scholastic/make-work] time investments will be marginally diminishing at best, or non-existent at worst.
Stating the obvious: Type A persons birth Type B persons all the time, and vice-versa. Resultantly, Type As *raise* Type Bs all the time, and vice-versa. How is this value clash handled? Is it even *fathomable* as a problem to be analyzed? Is it discussed by the general public? Or by moral philosophers, perhaps?
Enter Adultism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultism
Adultist practice at its most abominable: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_mother
More uncompromising 'individualism' right here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent
Imposing these routines & drudgeries on others entails deluding oneself to the point where a low[er] Time Preference is believed to be objectively superior to a high[er] Time Preference. So workaholics -- along with all those who closely resemble them, but fall a smidgen short of registering as them -- are perceived as wiser or decisionally superior to non-workaholics, and even to self-sustaining slackers & minimalists. Are they? Type A is now officially better than Type B? We should all go through life believing we have something to prove? To whom, exactly? I must've missed the memo.
The alternative view: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leisure
Take the pro-leisure view to its ultimate end -- believing in its truth-aptness as strongly as the Type A careerist believes in his oppositional view -- and all compulsory schooling becomes unjustifiable. A dicey situation in its own right.
To reiterate: There's no truth/falsity to be found here. Not even wisdom. There are only irreconcilable attitudes stemming from divergent Time Preferences. That's it.
Major interpersonal implications follow from this, namely surrounding disciplinarianism:
The $227,000 child-rearing figure, sourced here for aspiring adoptive parents who see themselves as 'altruistic' but who shun EA because raising kids hands-on is somehow ethically benign: jefftk.com/rachels-2013-immorality-having-children.pdf
*
A holistic look at discrimination: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/discrimination/
Particularly salient: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/discrimination/#ChaConIndDis
*
The Leveling-Down Objection: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/#KinEga
My take on its verdict: Absolute Metrics win out over Comparative Metrics. Apply indistinguishably on a personal/apolitical level or on a national/political level. Status-concern is vanity, whether internationally or interpersonally. Thus, one shouldn't let oneself get taken in by envy when other individuals outperform him in some apolitical way. By the same token, one shouldn't allow oneself to be hoodwinked by envy when other nations economically upstage his particular nation. One should instead focus on one's own nation's absolute, non-relative performance. Annual econ charts do wonders here.
The takeaway: Feeding the youth to Professorial Wolves in hopes of recapturing long-gone national thrones, is morally inept.
The price you pay for ignoring this & obsessing over comparative performances by encouraging careerism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loan_default_in_the_United_States
By June 2014, U.S. student loan debt exceeded $1.2 trillion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_debt#United_States
Infographic of distribution as of Q4 2012: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_debt#/media/File:U.S._Student_Loan_Debt_Distribution_Q4_2012.png
Tragic.
Adultism + Careerism + Familial Essentialism = The above predicament.
The solution? The only tangible one within my radar entails targeting the source of the problem: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism
*
Further suggested reading: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychographic
Low vs. High time preferences are mutually-cancelling: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference
Neither preference is truth-apt. Nor is any "Happy Middle" sweet-spot preference slightly more truth-apt compared to the extreme ends of the spectrum. There is no truth/falsity dynamic at play here. Not thinly, and certainly not thickly. Both views are purely attitudinal; directed by individuals' affective and conative dispositions. Cognition is the third wheel, if at all present.
It is the multilayered Affective & Conative mental attributes that do all of the decisional work in choosing between Low vs. High time valuation.
Which segways nicely to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_careerism
Whether extreme or moderate, careerist lifestyles can only be chosen by the individual, but are unflinchingly projected onto impressionable youth through parental fear tactics or other more elaborate forms of psychological intimidation.
Highly applicable to the above: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_and_Type_B_personality_theory
Whenever a Type A parent [with something to prove] has power over a Type B child [with little or nothing to prove] any future returns on the child's [scholastic/make-work] time investments will be marginally diminishing at best, or non-existent at worst.
Stating the obvious: Type A persons birth Type B persons all the time, and vice-versa. Resultantly, Type As *raise* Type Bs all the time, and vice-versa. How is this value clash handled? Is it even *fathomable* as a problem to be analyzed? Is it discussed by the general public? Or by moral philosophers, perhaps?
Enter Adultism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultism
Adultist practice at its most abominable: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_mother
More uncompromising 'individualism' right here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent
Imposing these routines & drudgeries on others entails deluding oneself to the point where a low[er] Time Preference is believed to be objectively superior to a high[er] Time Preference. So workaholics -- along with all those who closely resemble them, but fall a smidgen short of registering as them -- are perceived as wiser or decisionally superior to non-workaholics, and even to self-sustaining slackers & minimalists. Are they? Type A is now officially better than Type B? We should all go through life believing we have something to prove? To whom, exactly? I must've missed the memo.
The alternative view: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leisure
Take the pro-leisure view to its ultimate end -- believing in its truth-aptness as strongly as the Type A careerist believes in his oppositional view -- and all compulsory schooling becomes unjustifiable. A dicey situation in its own right.
To reiterate: There's no truth/falsity to be found here. Not even wisdom. There are only irreconcilable attitudes stemming from divergent Time Preferences. That's it.
Major interpersonal implications follow from this, namely surrounding disciplinarianism:
The $227,000 child-rearing figure, sourced here for aspiring adoptive parents who see themselves as 'altruistic' but who shun EA because raising kids hands-on is somehow ethically benign: jefftk.com/rachels-2013-immorality-having-children.pdf
*
A holistic look at discrimination: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/discrimination/
Particularly salient: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/discrimination/#ChaConIndDis
*
The Leveling-Down Objection: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/#KinEga
My take on its verdict: Absolute Metrics win out over Comparative Metrics. Apply indistinguishably on a personal/apolitical level or on a national/political level. Status-concern is vanity, whether internationally or interpersonally. Thus, one shouldn't let oneself get taken in by envy when other individuals outperform him in some apolitical way. By the same token, one shouldn't allow oneself to be hoodwinked by envy when other nations economically upstage his particular nation. One should instead focus on one's own nation's absolute, non-relative performance. Annual econ charts do wonders here.
The takeaway: Feeding the youth to Professorial Wolves in hopes of recapturing long-gone national thrones, is morally inept.
The price you pay for ignoring this & obsessing over comparative performances by encouraging careerism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loan_default_in_the_United_States
By June 2014, U.S. student loan debt exceeded $1.2 trillion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_debt#United_States
Infographic of distribution as of Q4 2012: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_debt#/media/File:U.S._Student_Loan_Debt_Distribution_Q4_2012.png
Tragic.
Adultism + Careerism + Familial Essentialism = The above predicament.
The solution? The only tangible one within my radar entails targeting the source of the problem: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism
*
Further suggested reading: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychographic
