Into the lion's den

Confirmation bias is the term for seeking out sources of information that positively reflect one's current beliefs. Sometimes these sources can be other people.

Today I had a conversation with an old acquaintance who readily extolled his beliefs on religious open-mindedness, problems with government, and other weighty affairs. I agreed with nearly everything he said; I found myself making small remarks in agreement. And these were the only remarks I was making.

I notice that when like-minded people converse on polarizing topics, their conversations simply reflect their collective moods and nothing much new is learned. To arrive at new conclusions, we have to challenge our beliefs. Very often this means associating with people who have very different views from our own. It's good practice at arguing, and is valuable so long as we remain open-minded to allowing our beliefs to change.

Note: I wonder if my idea of values and beliefs, as defined in LessWrong, are the same thing.

A dynamic value system—revisited

It is interesting to note that a world view that is based upon a dynamic value system is similar to a Bayesian reasoner. This is a model for designing algorithms that must make decisions based upon incomplete information. Once more data is received, the degrees of plausibility that certain propositions are true are recalculated by the reasoner.

A world view based upon dynamic values changes its conclusions and outlook when its values change, and these change with experience (similar to acquiring new data in the Bayesian model).

This brings to mind a curious question: if two individuals share the exact same life experiences, are they necessarily the same person?

And to further explore this question: will differences in their physiology cause them to adopt different personalities and world views? Is it impossible to impose the exact same events in the two lives, making the question unanswerable? Because Bayesian reasoning, if it can even be correctly applied to human reasoning, is still based upon probabilities, is it actually only a question of how likely the two individuals will be more or less the same?

These thoughts have been fueled by E. T. Jaynes's "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science."

Addendum: I think the question above is only relevant within the context considering a Bayesian reasoner, i.e. not an actual human. Actual human thought is driven by more than reasonable analysis of propositions, such as physiology and emotion.

Happiness and careers

Last night I had a conversation with a friend about the nature of work and our careers. For context, I'm a graduate student entering my fifth year and hoping to finish in six; he's three years older than I am and working as a programmer for a web development company. Careers are important parts of the lives of those of us in our mid-to-late twenties since we are working so hard to establish them. The popular thought is that without a proper career, we can not find happiness later in life. This happiness comes from the attainment of wealth, family, and the approval of our friends and family for having achieved these things. This, at least, is my interpretation of the general consensus of my generation.

My observation is that, from this viewpoint, the happiness obtained by a career is from things external to ourselves. Wealth, a family, and social recognition are all independent of our own minds. But I think people often fail to realize the importance of the internal rewards earned through their careers. For example, one can find happiness knowing that their job helps others (teachers, doctors) or is aesthetically pleasing (artists, mathematicians). This is evident by the number of people willing to teach and the "starving artists" that frequent coffee shops and small venues the world over.

Many of my close friends are struggling to find what exactly they value more: internal or external rewards for their hard work. Granted, the two are not mutually exclusive, but the optimal ratio of the amount of the one to the other-the one that provides the greatest degree of happiness-can vary drastically depending upon the individual. Unfortunately, failing to recognize which of the two any of my friends value more can keep them from finding contentment.

A simple recognition of one's own values is not enough to find happiness with a career, though it certainly is an important first step. This observation (that self-understanding is not sufficient) underscores the importance of acting on one's desires. However, it takes courage to change careers (or even jobs within the same field), especially considering that one might suffer a severe cut in pay or the uncertainty in reestablishing oneself in a new workplace. An additional difficulty with changing jobs is that people may place the values of others above their own in deciding upon their career path. A society might greatly value wealth, so a person may lock themselves into a high-paying job, despite being unhappy, because it's what others think is important. In this case, I believe that the individual's values should trump those of others, though this too takes a certain degree of courage and sense of self.

To summarize, the point of a career is to find an optimum degree of contentment. This comes in the form of compensation, which includes both external and internal rewards. Though not mutually exclusive, people tend to favor one type of reward over the other. Failure to recognize what one wants out of their career often leads to boredom and discontent, but so too does failing to change careers because of prejudices based upon what career success means. The first step in finding happiness is to establish one's values, then act accordingly. This will take courage, but many things in life that are worthwhile do.

After thought:  I didn't address it, but some people may also find difficulty pursuing their chosen career field, which adds another degree of complexity to my analysis. For example, women may face barriers in many fields dominated by men. Consideration of these factors might change my conclusions, but I think that for the most part they apply in general.

A dynamic value system

During my bike ride this morning I struggled to understand how a philosophy can be built upon a base set of values that are allowed to change.

Let me clarify: I understand many philosophies to be structured in a manner similar to a mathematical theorem. One first states relevant definitions and assumptions, then makes (hopefully) consistent arguments based these assumptions which lead to a conclusion. I believe that values are the analog to assumptions in philosophy.

I've developed a suspicion that this structure is perhaps too rigid to support a world view that can satisfy me. As I age I change my mind on opinions and my general outlook, i.e. my values change. It seems that I've encountered the difficulty of trying to formulate a philosophy grounded in dynamic principles.

I'm also trying to come to grips on why a changing set of values can be preferred to a static one. Perhaps the empirical evidence I gave above--that my opinions change with time--is enough to make this claim.