> This maps to something I've noticed.
> There's a pattern where human beings are wired to enjoy things that are important for their survival and thriving, but that these instincts are easily hijacked for aimless gratification.
It's late and I'm tired so most likely I'm not understanding your point properly. Aren't those literally the most fundamental and nearly universally known (i.e. preached by popular science) results from (a) evolution and (b) neuroscience research, respectively?
> I would say hedonism, but I think even that ascribes a ethical imperative to seek pleasure
Describing hedonism as an imperative is wrong IMO. Hedonism is a drive not a directive. Personally I think that it's the most accurate truth in the world that people do things only because they want to and not for any other reason[1]. I help others because doing things that I think helps others brings me pleasure, not actually because of anything else.
1 - Actions of course don't exist in a vacuum and often doing one thing precludes doing another. So certainly one might work a shitty demeaning job because they want to not starve to death on the street more than they want to not work that job. But a person doesn't give money to a homeless man if it doesn't make them feel good to do so.
> I think this is just way too simplistic of a view of it. People won't just follow two exact patterns of behavior regardless of their environment. We all have, to varying extents, a proclivity to instant dopamine-based gratification.
Perhaps in the same way as an LED dimmed via pulse-width modulation has, to a varying extent, a proclivity to not produce light? Then just as the human perception of such an LED is on a continuum between "off" and "full brightness", so people's net-worths-at-retirement will stand on a continuum between starvation and Bill Gates.
> which is probably a really great evolutionary driver
While true, I find this ironic since this constant drive for new things is a huge source of dissatisfaction, unhappiness, and general lack of desire to procreate.
You can tell me all day to find fulfillment in the journey, but life isn't setup that way. Most often the highest paying work is devoid of novelty and is mostly an exercise in focus and repetition.
We spend our most healthy and youthful years, sitting a chair staring at a monitor for the majority of our days and the worst part is we're payed so incredibly well that you'd be a fool to do anything else.
"Enjoy the journey" I hear everyone say. What journey?
> I think people doing altruistic things do enjoy them, but they don't do them because they enjoy them. They do them because they need to be done, and the enjoyment is a side effect.
What is the difference between the two conditions? The only one I can think of is that removing the side effect does not change the behavior, but removing the main motivator does. How is this significant though? Is it easier to lose enjoyment from altruistic activities than to lose a sense of responsibility? Is pleasure more fickle than duty?
That distinction, IMHO, also makes the definition of altruism so narrow as to be useless.
> If we're talking about a dysfunctional reward pathway would it not stand to reason that someone's gravitation toward systems who provide thousands of small immediate rewards only reinforce this dysfunction?
This makes perfect sense to me.
But in the longest term, what actually /is/ the point? What is the reward that people are supposed to be pursuing /instead/ of video games, porn, and Instagram? We cannot pursue long-term goals if we don't have any. Where do they come from, those goals, that purpose?
> I feel kind of gross typing that out because it feels like some sort of appeal to nature but I can't shake it.
I wonder what you mean by this.
The apparent grossness of appeals to nature must stem from the fact that they have been used to justify injustice. But every form of argument is used to justify injustice -- so I don't think we should pre-emptively cut away our mind's ability to think naturalistic thoughts, just to avoid error. Maybe we have ignored Mother Nature for too long.
This brings me back to the original question, about purpose. Maybe it comes from Nature. Maybe a failure to enthusiastically perform for society means that the menu of options offered by that society contains nothing compatible with what Nature actually wants for us.
Porn is the best example. Why is it bad? What real thing is it simulating? What should you be doing instead?
Video games are similar: What real thing is being simulated?
You mention the development of competencies as an alternative. I agree that this is better. But what purpose of Nature's is served by the development of skills?
The feeling I can't shake is that addiction is the substitution of the simulated for the real, that increasingly everything is simulated, that the thing we are being distracted from is our own biological reality, and that we are, again artificially, trying to hack our own reward systems to be satisfied with goals that our not in our own Natures.
> So you agree that needing to do something doesn't automatically make it unenjoyable then?
I’m not GP, but I’d say the things we need to do not being enjoyable is a deficiency and problem of the technological system, and not necessarily a solvable one. In a pre-tech world (e.g. 15th century), our needs were directly tied to our happiness due to biological reward circuits.
Ted Kaczynski argues about this point extensively in his books, I recommend esp. Technological Slavery, available free online.
> One thing that makes me happy is accomplishment.
What you describe sounds suspiciously similar to what Muehlhauser calls creating "success spirals" [1], which is coincidentally in the same sequence "The Science of Winning at Life".
> The allure of LW is that we're perfectly rational or that we can at least make ourselves that we through sheer force of will.
And to be fair, LW: does make a distinction between epistemic (ideal) rationality and instrumental (pragmatic) rationality [2]; is aware of its propensity for insight porn [3]; and has made progress towards bringing things in the stratosphere [4] back down to the object level (e.g. [5][6]).
Short-term outcomes: satisfy biological and psychological needs now.
Long-term outcomes: satisfy biological and psychological needs later.
Biological needs are pretty obvious (e.g., food).
Psychological needs are less obvious (what makes you happy). These can range from mere entertainment all the way to being creative.
For me the real thing is creation. Being creative makes me happy. Being a good parent makes me happy because that means my children get to be happy, and having and raising children is -for many people- part of what it means to be creative.
> Is there even an end to this?
Yes, there is. Individuals die. Species become extinct. Enjoy the ride, and do good, while it lasts.
> Another way to consider this is that people find it easier to divert themselves than to exert themselves only to be dissappointed.
This is an exceptionally succinct description of the problem, thank you. A societal shift from exertion to diversion. Creation to consumption. Scary stuff.
> the illusions of Bernaysian manipulation [2] certainly can
What do you mean here, in reference to Bernays? For context, I’m familiar with his work and legacy — the documentary ‘The Century of the Self’[1] is still perhaps the most important piece of media I’ve ever consumed.
Evolution has designed us to desire to be happy, but to be unhappy (to some degree, at some times). Otherwise we'd have no drive to do anything ever.
Some degree of unhappiness coupled with the desire to increase happiness is a state we should often expect in a healthy, intelligent individual. A state of unassailable optimal happiness should probably be pathologized (if it isn't already so).
The thought that something as nuanced, complex, diverse, and ever-changing as human desires, can be captured in a single, static "reward function" sounds ridiculous to me.
And yet, people will try, and they will probably get pretty close. And then those whose desires do not fit neatly into that "reward function", will suffer.
I can already see lots of suffering caused by this type of thinking, today.
> I'm talking about gaining something, in this case a goal that is actionable, useful, and very difficult to achieve.
What exactly is that?
> so why don't you share yours?
Just as the body has a pleasure/pain mechanism, so the mind has a joy/suffering mechanism.
The biological purpose of this mechanism is to give you joy when you experience physical pleasure, and pain when you experience physical pain; but moreover, to regulate the anticipation of physical pleasure/success and physical pain/failure. That anticipation is mediated by your rationally (or not) chosen values. There is more that can be said about this... for example, self-esteem comes from building a character that allows for the rational assumption that you can expect continued success as an organism, and the rewards thereof.
So, my purpose is to experience joy and happiness in my life by choosing and pursuing rational values, given the constraints I mentioned above.
Obviously, the amount of philosophy you can do in an online comment is pretty limited. What I've said is just a summary. After all, I started in ethics, whereas a full philosophical exposition would start with metaphysics or epistemology.
Since your post was mainly about other people, let me say: other people are valuable to me, because they can be friends, lovers, trading partners, etc. So, there are good arguments to be made for helping others. I think arguing it from "duty" is not doing it in a rational way and will lead to bad conclusions.
By the way, I want to make it clear that when I called what you said "disgusting hogwash," that wasn't a reflection on you at all. I just wanted to call out what I saw as a bad argument that I think could influence people to go in a very bad personal direction.
Being lazy and prone to instant gratification does not mean not having friends or family. Why would you see these two points as mutually exclusive?
>rich culture of arts and music
Are you assuming that everyone can produce something of value in this regard? They can't. A very large majority of it is complete crap.
>prefers to do something with their time
I didn't say people wouldn't do anything, just that they wouldn't do much anything they found uncomfortable to meet some abstract, long term goal. The ability to work to embetter themselves is not the same as mental masturbation.
>I am confident the majority will also prefer meaning over stagnation.
People need reasons to do things they find difficult. Motivation and drive is not born out of a vacuum. Remove a reason like the need to have food, water, heat, electricity, sanitation and housing; lose much of the need in creating wealth for yourself.
> The article says "Scientists previously had determined that four motivators influenced people to behave in a way that benefited other people."
I know. That's why I listed the 4 that was mentioned in the article.
The rest of your comment has nothing to do with my comment or the article so I'll just ignore it. Pleasure, morality and best person are really philosophical questions better left to another thread.
Yeah I don't think Luxury cars give a big level of satisfaction.
For me, I have always felt that I can easily spend $20 and have a weekend of fun, or $100 and have a night out at a bar. The $20 for a weekend feels better.
That's the point. There are better forms of entertainment. The problem is that socializing is also a need our brain has that takes a back-seat.
Edit: Current society has most of our motivations to do things kinda met: games & tv, social media & game groups, porn. More or less you can control most of your basic motivations without the need for socializing or doing things that cost more than a bit of money. I'd argue 200 years ago it would be impossible to be satisfied even at that level without major social gatherings and such.
> Passion and ambition are just not neuro-vanilla traits.
Hard disagree, which I think is your point. I see this as an offshoot of anti-intellectualism: distaste for / absence of passion and ambition is cultural, not biological, and culture becomes self-sustaining.
> The only way out is empathy - true empathy, a willingness to accept sometimes (often) people do things for the sheer joy of doing them.
Strong agree, and it's wild to me that this has indeed become a radical idea.
> No, it exists as evidence of trying to be happy by craving material possessions. We believe that they'll make us happy, but all they really provide is temporary relief from our cravings and then more misery once the craving reasserts itself. It's a cycle that never leads to actual happiness.
It's late and I'm tired so most likely I'm not understanding your point properly. Aren't those literally the most fundamental and nearly universally known (i.e. preached by popular science) results from (a) evolution and (b) neuroscience research, respectively?
reply