Musings

Bets and commitments

I think commitments give our life meaning. They might be to family, to a cause, to ourselves — whatever!

I reckon that we act on these commitments through bets that we make, and when we make bets aligned to our commitments, we are more fulfilled. Time can be a bet — we might wager a year to test an idea, for example.

The challenge, though, is that sometimes we confuse bets and commitments. Say you do a degree to make your parents happy — is their happiness a commitment that you've made, or is it just a bet you're making (that you earning the degree will make them happy) which isn't actually in line with what you're really committed to?

Sidenote — I think society frames a lot of things as 'beliefs', and this makes them quite fraught. It is a big deal to hold a belief, and threats to it are threats to our personhood. But if these were framed as commitments (e.g., I am committed to the idea of open borders), then I think we could speak more freely about these things and maybe be more open to changing our minds sometimes.

Benchmarks are important

One of my favourite facts is that you only know you're allergic to a bee sting on the second sting. Your body has to learn that it's allergic for you to have a reaction.

Extrapolating (wildly), I think most things are like this. You don't really know anything until you've seen 2 iterations of it. (For instance, I had no understanding of how bad the conditions were in Greek refugee camps until I saw Kiryandongo Settlement in Uganda — I just didn't have a point of comparison.)

Time

Time is limited (obviously).

We can enjoy time (now), or we can 'spend' time (now) to try to 'buy' more time (save years of life), or to 'buy' better quality time (improve years of life) for ourselves or for others (later).

If we're not doing either of these things, what are we doing with our time?

Marginal utility

A lot of people in my circles are clamouring to do 'impactful' work. I think on its own, this is the wrong metric.

I've been asked many times why I don't become a human rights lawyer, for instance. It'd be a great way to use my law degree, have a respectable profession, make a decent living, and be impactful.

Perhaps, but I know many lawyers who want to take this path, and are struggling to find work. Would I be better at this job than any of them? Doubtful. And so, if this is a zero-sum game, and there just aren't enough opportunities to do this work, how much additional impact would I put into the world becoming a human rights lawyer? Particularly if it meant the person whose spot I was taking didn't do something impactful, my marginal impact would be neutral, or negative.

This is a high bar for what a worthwhile job looks like. But I think for people with a broad skillset, there is an added duty to go where your skills are (truly) uniquely suited, or go where others won't.

The doctrine of 'even if'

Basic idea: even if we believe something to be true, that doesn't make it action-guiding. (Put another way: there is a distinction between belief and action-guiding-ness.)

For instance, even if I believe in determinism, I should probably act as though I have free will.

Or, even if I am a utilitarian, my actions should still be governed by some deontological principles.

There's a lot riding on 'should' here — I think this is where this argument may come under threat. 'Should' implies an overarching principle of societal good that I'm imposing here, and not everyone will agree with this.

Luck

I don't love the bootstraps narrative. I think most things are luck — where you're born being the big one, from which most outcomes in life flow.

We can certainly do things to make ourselves more lucky, but it's important not to lose sight of the role of chance.

To be enough

This is still something I struggle with from time to time. I want to accept that I am 'enough'.

Value-laden

Why do we assign value to everything? Good guys and bad guys: this feels like something taught quite young. But can people just be people? Is there any such thing as a good or bad person?

Similarly with luck — bad luck today could be good luck in hindsight — why the need to label it?

Are we responsible for things we don't choose?

I didn't ask to be born upper-middle-class. I didn't ask to be born at all.

Should I feel responsible to others because of my privilege? If so, why?