If there are people who sometimes really pursue power and money for their own sake—so that there’s nothing specifically determined that they’re going to do with the power or money, however much they get—one explanation for this would be that it’s a FIAT goal born of interpreting the instrumental goal. (There are probably a lot of other explanations for this behavior; e.g. they may be traumatized into non-goal-pursuing behavior that locally seeks power, like a forest fire.)
Is the parenthetical here misplaced? It seems unrelated to the text that precedes it.
Ah, I initially interpreted “forest fire” literally, as the event that traumatizes someone into non-goal-pursuing behavior. I see now that it’s supposed to be parsed as a figurative description of how the behavior itself spreads.
Is the parenthetical here misplaced? It seems unrelated to the text that precedes it.
It’s giving an alternative explanation of the observation.
Ah, I initially interpreted “forest fire” literally, as the event that traumatizes someone into non-goal-pursuing behavior. I see now that it’s supposed to be parsed as a figurative description of how the behavior itself spreads.
Oh right sorry. Yeah, exactly.