Consider the possibility that you’re (and many are) conflating multiple distinct things under the term “agency”.
1) Moral weight. I’ll admit that I used the term “NPC” in my youth, and I regret it now. In fact, everyone has a rich life and their own struggles.
2) Something like “self-actualization”, perhaps “growth mindset” or other names for a feeling of empowerment and the belief that one has significant influence over one’s future. This is the locus-of-control belief (for the future).
3) Actual exercised influence over one’s future. This is the locus-of-control truth (in the past).
4) Useful non-comformity—others’ perceptions of unpredictability in desirable dimensions. Simply being weird isn’t enough—being successfully weird is necessary.
I’m not sure I agree that “planning” is the key element. I think belief (on the agent’s part and in those evaluating agency of others) in locus of control is more important. Planning may make control more effective, but isn’t truly necessary to have the control.
I’m not at all sure that these are the same thing. But I do wonder if they’re related in the sense that they classify into a cluster in an annoying but strong evolutionary strategy: “ally worth acquiring”. Someone powerful enough (or likely to become so) to have an influence on my goals, and at the same time unpredictable enough that I need to spend effort on cultivating the alliance rather than taking it for granted.
Conflating (or even having a strong correlation between) 1 the others is tricky because considering any significant portion of humanity to be “non-agents” is horrific, but putting effort into coordinating with non-agents is stupid. I suspect the right middle ground is to realize that there’s a wide band of potential agency, and humans occupy a narrow part of it. What seems like large variance to us is really pretty trivial.
“Makes sense, and humans don’t have any other simple agents. We have them out in the wild, we have them out in the wild, we don’t have them out in the wild . .
This comes from a post that makes reference to a real life case that doesn’t use the word “emotion.”
Consider the possibility that you’re (and many are) conflating multiple distinct things under the term “agency”.
1) Moral weight. I’ll admit that I used the term “NPC” in my youth, and I regret it now. In fact, everyone has a rich life and their own struggles.
2) Something like “self-actualization”, perhaps “growth mindset” or other names for a feeling of empowerment and the belief that one has significant influence over one’s future. This is the locus-of-control belief (for the future).
3) Actual exercised influence over one’s future. This is the locus-of-control truth (in the past).
4) Useful non-comformity—others’ perceptions of unpredictability in desirable dimensions. Simply being weird isn’t enough—being successfully weird is necessary.
I’m not sure I agree that “planning” is the key element. I think belief (on the agent’s part and in those evaluating agency of others) in locus of control is more important. Planning may make control more effective, but isn’t truly necessary to have the control.
I’m not at all sure that these are the same thing. But I do wonder if they’re related in the sense that they classify into a cluster in an annoying but strong evolutionary strategy: “ally worth acquiring”. Someone powerful enough (or likely to become so) to have an influence on my goals, and at the same time unpredictable enough that I need to spend effort on cultivating the alliance rather than taking it for granted.
Conflating (or even having a strong correlation between) 1 the others is tricky because considering any significant portion of humanity to be “non-agents” is horrific, but putting effort into coordinating with non-agents is stupid. I suspect the right middle ground is to realize that there’s a wide band of potential agency, and humans occupy a narrow part of it. What seems like large variance to us is really pretty trivial.
“Makes sense, and humans don’t have any other simple agents. We have them out in the wild, we have them out in the wild, we don’t have them out in the wild . .
This comes from a post that makes reference to a real life case that doesn’t use the word “emotion.”