EPTDoing things the "right" way - Page 2
| Blogs > DarkLordOlli |
|
Dodgin
Canada39254 Posts
| ||
|
Agh
United States984 Posts
On February 24 2016 03:47 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Nice blog, but I have to disagree a little bit. Our decisions are rarely so black and white. Sure there is the easy way out, along with the difficult path, but there are many options available. Perhaps there is an easy way that works best, or maybe the 'right' choice will take too long and we don't have time to take that path. Strongly disagree. It actually irks me when when people can't come to terms with a decision. There is always a clear cut best outcome to choose from -- if you think that there is not, then you really need to create some values for yourself to live by and shape as you live your days. On February 26 2016 15:57 nanaoei wrote: in your example of the relationship, most if not everything is not unsolvable, it just requires an even heavier amount of effort and belief on top of the cognizances necessary to recognize the situation. i have faith that that's one step beyond the breakup, or having the solution in tow as necessary. of course, there's even more levels beyond even that. If you have to mold somebody you're in a relationship with then you should just cut it immediately. Any ounce of discontent or unhappiness experienced should not be tolerated. It's fine to have disagreements or even arguments with a significant other as long as the issue at hand doesn't make you genuinely unhappy. On February 23 2016 07:41 Olli wrote: I hate the pleasant way more than anything else. It shows cowardice and an inability to stay above it all and take all factors into consideration, then make calm and intelligent, sustainable decisions. We all make poor decisions, sometimes without even knowing it. The best thing that can be done is just to bury it and move on and learn from the experience. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 01 2016 11:42 Agh wrote: Strongly disagree. It actually irks me when when people can't come to terms with a decision. There is always a clear cut best outcome to choose from -- if you think that there is not, then you really need to create some values for yourself to live by and shape as you live your days. If you have to mold somebody you're in a relationship with then you should just cut it immediately. Any ounce of discontent or unhappiness experienced should not be tolerated. It's fine to have disagreements or even arguments with a significant other as long as the issue at hand doesn't make you genuinely unhappy. We all make poor decisions, sometimes without even knowing it. The best thing that can be done is just to bury it and move on and learn from the experience. Oh, you young people are so cute when you think there's certainty in the world  it's so adorable really. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
Kind of plays with what you're trying to think about. Doing things you know are wrong not necessarily because they are themselves easier, but because they've artificially been made easier by warped incentives to do the wrong thing / and a general culture saying 'we know we doing it wrong' without any plan to fix it, and with a lot of friction when you are the only person who does want to fix it / the people you're fixing it for don't appreciate it. But I think the categorization of pleasant and right decision is a bad one. It follows the fallacy that something is better just because it is harder. Actually, pleasant and right decisions are the same thing. You save yourself lots of pain doing things right, and you are immediately filled with pride as you make them. It's just a problem when the right decision is made artificially painful by outside factors, like a boss who needs something done in an hour, and your own emotions of frustration clouding your ability to even think what the right thing to do is. For human relationships, actually the pleasant decision is almost always better. You could be a drama queen and make ultimatums and or get loud and angry and be unpleasant, but the most effective relationships utilize communication and discussion. It's painful to talk to people who don't know how to discuss without arguing, and also useless. Being pleasant and just discussing things usually leads to a satisfying result for everyone. And when someone is a brick wall, the more pleasant thing to do is to avoid them. The unpleasant, and useless thing, to try to get them to listen. The decision you're talking about, the flimsy one that doesn't address the problem, I don't find that pleasant. I can't really trick myself into thinking a problem is solved when it isn't. So I lose sleep if I have to do your version of a 'pleasant' decision. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 02 2016 05:12 Chef wrote: Ruby Rogues had a podcast this week about the normalization of deviance. Kind of plays with what you're trying to think about. Doing things you know are wrong not necessarily because they are themselves easier, but because they've artificially been made easier by warped incentives to do the wrong thing / and a general culture saying 'we know we doing it wrong' without any plan to fix it, and with a lot of friction when you are the only person who does want to fix it / the people you're fixing it for don't appreciate it. But I think the categorization of pleasant and right decision is a bad one. It follows the fallacy that something is better just because it is harder. Actually, pleasant and right decisions are the same thing. You save yourself lots of pain doing things right, and you are immediately filled with pride as you make them. It's just a problem when the right decision is made artificially painful by outside factors, like a boss who needs something done in an hour, and your own emotions of frustration clouding your ability to even think what the right thing to do is. For human relationships, actually the pleasant decision is almost always better. You could be a drama queen and make ultimatums and or get loud and angry and be unpleasant, but the most effective relationships utilize communication and discussion. It's painful to talk to people who don't know how to discuss without arguing, and also useless. Being pleasant and just discussing things usually leads to a satisfying result for everyone. And when someone is a brick wall, the more pleasant thing to do is to avoid them. The unpleasant, and useless thing, to try to get them to listen. The decision you're talking about, the flimsy one that doesn't address the problem, I don't find that pleasant. I can't really trick myself into thinking a problem is solved when it isn't. So I lose sleep if I have to do your version of a 'pleasant' decision. TLDR Running from problems is not the same thing as solving them. Working through problems is not the same thing as accepting them. | ||
|
TheGloob
97 Posts
I also think this is a huge oversimplification: In a way, you can blame almost all our problems on everyone doing things the easy way. I don't think you can blame "almost all of our problems" on any one thing. I don't think I can blame "almost all" of my problems on a single thing... Anyways, I agree with the general idea that there is value to facing one's problems directly even if that may be hard or unpleasant. I disagree with just about everything else.  | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On March 02 2016 08:34 Naracs_Duc wrote: TLDR Running from problems is not the same thing as solving them. Working through problems is not the same thing as accepting them. You could probably write a more reasonable reply by reading the thing you're replying to. Although I take the point that more forum posts are very verbose and I don't spend enough time whittling them down to just the core meaning. If you were attempting to whittle it down, you really missed it though. But I think you were attempting to argue with something I didn't say. So all around great effort, I can't fail you for not doing your homework since that's no longer allowed in the current education system. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 02 2016 23:53 Chef wrote: You could probably write a more reasonable reply by reading the thing you're replying to. Although I take the point that more forum posts are very verbose and I don't spend enough time whittling them down to just the core meaning. If you were attempting to whittle it down, you really missed it though. But I think you were attempting to argue with something I didn't say. So all around great effort, I can't fail you for not doing your homework since that's no longer allowed in the current education system. Wasn't arguing, was agreeing. The OP is making the argument that there are only easy choices, and hard choices, and uses that as a jumping off point to give him a reason to leave his partner--because its hard and he's not happy in the immediate present. This is a bad argument to me, not because I don't disagree with his conclusion (he's perfectly free to leave her) but I disagree with the axioms he is presenting as true. When it comes to solving problems, there are only two ways to do it. Either stick around and work on it, or run away from it. Neither of the two options is right or wrong, they are simply attempts at reaching a solved state. Sticking around does not automatically mean you're ignoring it (although it can), while running away does not mean the problem is resolved (although it also can). Trying to frame human decision making as a moralistic zero sum game is weird and ignores the actual complexity of why we have human interaction in the first place. In short: Running from problems is not the same thing as solving them. Working through problems is not the same thing as accepting them. | ||
Olli
Austria24417 Posts
On March 03 2016 03:24 Naracs_Duc wrote: Wasn't arguing, was agreeing. The OP is making the argument that there are only easy choices, and hard choices, and uses that as a jumping off point to give him a reason to leave his partner--because its hard and he's not happy in the immediate present. Yeah, that isn't it at all. That was an example, not more. Also you misunderstood the distinction. It isn't easy and hard choices, it's pleasant and right choices. Making the right choice can be incredibly easy, making a pleasant choice can be incredibly hard. And also, what you just described as "it being hard and not being happy in the immediate present" is exactly where a decision needs to be made. The "right" approach in my book would be to try and work it out as well as possible - but if the problem can't be solved and there are issues between the two partners that cannot be solved even after trying to fix them, then breaking up becomes the right choice. Staying together, pretending everything's fine would be pleasant. Never in all of this did I say that you should skip the "trying to work it out" part. In fact, breaking up without trying to fix the issue at hand would be the exact opposite: that would be the pleasant, easy choice to make. Trying to work out problems is hard and can be incredibly painful. Cutting that part out to protect yourself from the potential pain - now that's pleasant. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 03 2016 04:53 Olli wrote: Yeah, that isn't it at all. That was an example, not more. Also you misunderstood the distinction. It isn't easy and hard choices, it's pleasant and right choices. Making the right choice can be incredibly easy, making a pleasant choice can be incredibly hard. And also, what you just described as "it being hard and not being happy in the immediate present" is exactly where a decision needs to be made. The "right" approach in my book would be to try and work it out as well as possible - but if the problem can't be solved and there are issues between the two partners that cannot be solved even after trying to fix them, then breaking up becomes the right choice. Staying together, pretending everything's fine would be pleasant. Never in all of this did I say that you should skip the "trying to work it out" part. In fact, breaking up without trying to fix the issue at hand would be the exact opposite: that would be the pleasant, easy choice to make. Trying to work out problems is hard and can be incredibly painful. Cutting that part out to protect yourself from the potential pain - now that's pleasant. This is where you're trying to argue semantics. You believe there is a dichotomy when it comes to choice, and you attempt to use definitions to skew the perspective by using non-comparative word choices. By defining one choice as being "right" it automatically makes the case that the other choice is automatically "wrong." And then by making the definition of the other choice "pleasant" you attempt to lure people into thinking that the opposing side must be "hard/unpleasant." But then the entire ruse falls apart the moment you actually attempt to show an example. Mainly because human relationships aren't math problems. Person A is unhappy with Person B. So you make the axiom that Person A leaving Person B is the right choice. Being that you have pre-framed the wrong choice as "pleasant", you attempt to say that leaving the person must be "unpleasant." But you haven't even shown how them leaving is unpleasant. If Person A is unhappy with Person B, the only logical conclusion that can be made is that leaving is the pleasant thing to do. Staying and remaining unhappy is the complete opposite of pleasant. In the scenario, staying is unpleasant in two ways--if you ignore the problems then you will be unhappy since that is the axiom of the scenario. Staying is also unpleasant if you choose not to ignore the problems and attempt to fix it--since working out problems is always hard and unpleasant, otherwise there wasn't really any problems to begin with. That means, in your example, the only pleasant option is leaving, which you attempt to state is the right action. But it makes me think--why would he think this? And it becomes obvious that you are mistaking the presupposed conclusion as being the same thing as the immediate decision. Which forces us to go back to your attempt at semantic word play. You attempt to force two concepts as one thing Right vs Wrong and Pleasant vs Unpleasant. This means that you believe decisions have two components, one being logical and one being emotional. You believe the logical choice must be the correct one, and that the emotional choice must be the wrong one. Because of this, you attempt to conflate the two comparative phrases. Pleasant vs Wrong, which suggests you also believe that other is true--Unpleasant vs Right. But, you see, we already have words we use for that--Hard vs Easy, which has the same meaning as Pleasant vs Unpleasant. And this is where it you really show yourself. You see, you believe that Easy choices must be wrong, because hard choices must be right. Its apparent by your word choice, it is apparent by your argument, and it is apparent by your examples. But here's the thing--as could be shown by just exploring your example, it turns out there is no right or wrong answer. Just all these options with some being harder or easier than the other. The only time right and wrong answers really come up is in hindsight, something that immediate choices do not have access to. In hindsight, you can see it was right to have run from your relationship. In hindsight, you can see it was wrong to have run from your relationship. But you do not know that in the immediate present. In the immediate present, you only have easy choices (pleasant) and hard choices (unpleasant) and both are as likely to be the right choice as the other. Here's how it works. If there is a problem, you either work on it or run away from it. One is easier than the other, and you won't know you made the right decision until you've already made it. That's it, that's all that it is. Until you've resolved a problem, you can always spend more energy working to fix it. There is no definite line where things are "solvable/unsolvable," there only comes a time where it is easier to run away than it is to stay and some people choose to run away than to keep trying to fix it. | ||
|
Olli
Austria24417 Posts
| ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:33 Olli wrote: Disagreed, entirely. Its the pleasant choice to do so  | ||
|
Olli
Austria24417 Posts
I don't think you can work through everything. That's wishful thinking. Some fundamental issues cannot be solved between certain people. I'd never be able to work out issues between myself and Bin Laden or something - obviously exaggerating, but you get the train of thought. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:49 Olli wrote: I don't think you can work through everything. That's wishful thinking. Some fundamental issues cannot be solved between certain people. I'd never be able to work out issues between myself and Bin Laden or something - obviously exaggerating, but you get the train of thought. But that's a hindsight issue isn't it? At its core, all problems have possible answers. Whether you believe that answer is worth it or not worth it is purely subjective. Bin Laden is dead, but lets assume you had fundamental problems with the current IS leadership. There are many ways to interact with them. You could join a terror cell, move up the ranks until you are seen as one of their peers, and then you can have a deep and direct conversation with each other about your issues with them. Maybe that's too much commitment? You could join a military/mercenary/humanitarian branch and go over to Syria and actively work against the regime. Maybe still too much commitment? And you could keep working on doing overly extreme ways to reach out, interact with, and attempt to solve your issues with them, make it be both your life and career goal, and work your way to be a world leader to do it. But no matter which road you take, you always have to ask yourself--is solving this problem worth doing, or would I rather take the easier route instead. Its not really about whether or not you can or can't solve the issues--its really about how far are you willing to go to maintain that conversation. And then, when you're in the conversation, how much is each side willing to cede to make it work, and how much is each side willing fight to not have to cede. And even that part of the issue, whether to cede or stand your ground during the fight, that too is about hard or easy choices, and not really about right or wrong choices. Lets go back to the extreme example of a person's issues with a global terrorist leader. Is what you are doing right now more important than trying to stop an act of genocide? If its not, then you're obviously making the wrong moral choice, because you could be actively trying to stop genocide instead of reading threads on Teamliquid. But will you make that be your new mission? Or is it much easier to just ignore genocide and keep reading social media? Trump is currently running for president. If he became the president, would choosing not to assassinate him make you complicit in everything bad he's about to do? Maybe, maybe not, it depends on how vested you are in it. Most people would take the easy choice, and not actively try and make America a better place--because its too hard to assassinate a president. But that act of choice, that act of choosing to try and solve an issue, no matter how hard it seems to solve, or choosing to run away from an issue because of how much easier of an option it seems to run away, that is what choice is at its core. The truth is that until you've followed solved a problem (or died trying to solve a problem), there is always MORE you could be doing, more you could be ceding, and more you could be pushing. Which is why it isn't wrong to choose not to fix a problem. It isn't wrong to choose the easier choice. | ||
|
Olli
Austria24417 Posts
I don't like that talk about "the wrong moral choice" - there isn't a right or wrong in my opinion. Which is what makes the "right" and "pleasant" decisions completely different for everyone. Accepting your own inability to do, as you essentially put it, "everything" for the rest of your days is a realization and stopping might just be the right choice for you. But there's a difference in actually working up the courage to figure out and accept your own shortcomings and make decisions with them in mind, and making those decisions without even thinking all through or trying first. You can come to the same conclusion but it's the way you get to your solution that's important to me. Take the relationship example, we can even turn it around if you like to make it end happily. Two partners figure out a problem with their relationship. Pleasant option: ignore the problem, act like it doesn't matter, stay together. Might work, might not work. But hey, saves you the potential hardship of having to accept that everything isn't alright. "Right" option: accept that there are issues. Embrace them, work on solving them. Find a way to continue - stay together. Might be hard work to get to common ground, but at least that problem is solved for good. They stay together in both examples, but one will leave you in a much stronger, safer place - because you actually solved the problem instead of hiding from it. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 03 2016 08:07 Olli wrote: But conversation isn't a solution, and it shouldn't be - endless conversation is the exact opposite of finding a solution. At some point you should reach the conclusion that you won't find a solution (this isn't running away, it's simply realizing that a problem cannot be solved) and you stop. That itself can be a solution, in my book at least. I don't like that talk about "the wrong moral choice" - there isn't a right or wrong in my opinion. Which is what makes the "right" and "pleasant" decisions completely different for everyone. Accepting your own inability to do, as you essentially put it, "everything" for the rest of your days is a realization and stopping might just be the right choice for you. But there's a difference in actually working up the courage to figure out and accept your own shortcomings and make decisions with them in mind, and making those decisions without even thinking all through or trying first. You can come to the same conclusion but it's the way you get to your solution that's important to me. Take the relationship example, we can even turn it around if you like to make it end happily. Two partners figure out a problem with their relationship. Pleasant option: ignore the problem, act like it doesn't matter, stay together. Might work, might not work. But hey, saves you the potential hardship of having to accept that everything isn't alright. "Right" option: accept that there are issues. Embrace them, work on solving them. Find a way to continue - stay together. Might be hard work to get to common ground, but at least that problem is solved for good. They stay together in both examples, but one will leave you in a much stronger, safer place - because you actually solved the problem instead of hiding from it. The goal is not endless conversation. The goal is finding a solution. But you do not know when a solution is going to be made, nor do you get to decide when a solution is made. The order of events is "Problem, solving, solution" not "Problem, solution, solving." Now, if you're idea of "solving" a problem is "I want things to be ____" and then try to force the circumstance/partner into that preconceived solution--then I can see why you would feel that its possible to hit a brick wall. But if you are honestly trying to find a solution, and not trying to mold people to your will, then there is always a way to fix things--even if what needs fixing is you. If the problem solving becomes too difficult and you rather run away, then you run away. Whether something gets resolved or not is irrelevant to the choices we make. Lets go back to the relationship example. You guys are unhappy, so you either stay unhappy, try to fix things, or leave. Leaving is the most pleasant of those choices, since staying would make you unhappy, and working through problems is hard. So you attempt to fix it, and its taking longer than you would like. You now have the choice of continuing to work on it (the less pleasant choice), or leaving (the pleasant choice). Why do this? Because finding a solution does not guarantee a solution. Much like anything, its always much harder to push forward and keep looking than it is to give up. But just like anything--there is nothing wrong with giving up. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 28 2016 19:31 Olli wrote: Exactly so. Good blog keep them coming!Oh absolutely, I probably should have made that clear actually. I don't believe in an objective "right/wrong". What the "right" thing is varies from person to person, everyone needs something different. | ||
|
mantequilla
Turkey779 Posts
| ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On February 27 2016 04:24 Naracs_Duc wrote: Although I like the concept of what you're talking about: breaking up is definitely the pleasant choice in your example. It is much harder to fix problems than to run away from problems. Staying is always the harder choice. FYI staying is not always the harder choice, sometimes staying is the easier choice because it preserves the status quo. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 05 2016 02:24 Trainrunnef wrote: FYI staying is not always the harder choice, sometimes staying is the easier choice because it preserves the status quo. I don't understand your logic. Person A is unhappy. Person A looks for a solution. Person A believes solution to be maintaining status quo. That, to me, does not break from what I just described. If the rewards of leaving a problem is less than the rewards of staying with a problem, then the easy choice is to stay with the problem. How you value the rewards system will always be fluid and changing--but there is no "let me stay because its easier" unless your goal is to not find solutions. In which case, you are in an unpleasant situation and you choose to remain in an unpleasant situation. At no point is the act of staying not the unpleasant choice. | ||
| ||
