No time for post, but the concept of coordination problem (a problem that has multiple different sub-problems that need to be solved first before the entire thing can be solved and the desired results can be achieved) which I first encountered on this site is something I feel is incredibly important
Humans are simple creatures but life isn’t so simple. If a problem can’t be solved in one go, we might be tempted to just give up (impatience) or consider it unsolvable (learned helplessness). Or generalize the wrong thing (“I should avoid anything that has to do with X entirely”) due to the negative effects on motivation of not getting rewarded for one’s effort. Or have the problem go over our heads entirely because it’s too complex.
However adopting this frame in my own life has helped me, as a lot of things are coordination problems (so I post in hopes it helps more humans). For example, I realized solving my sleep schedule is a coordination problem and cannot be addressed by 1 fix especially not a delusional one like “just have more willpower.” But thinking of it as a multi part problem means my brain is now primed to recognize possible sub components, and focus on 1 thing at a time, and when I solve that 1 thing, I DO get motivation and pride and reward, because I made progress on the problem. Which is an angle I would have missed if I was only looking for the final result (perfectly fixed sleep schedule)-- that would have caused me to become discouraged since EVERYTHING, from environmental cues to mental obstacles, needs to be solved for that to happen. (Okay, I guess I’m also arguing that big problems with long timescales, need milestones/concrete ways of identifying chunks of progress along the way)
Ideally, these “1 small sub components” of the problem won’t be so limited in scope that it essentially leads to whack-a-mole. For example, I might sleep late due to individual instances like the temptation of doomscrolling, or temptation of hanging out with friends late into the night, temptation of late night snacking etc… I could identify each of these once they happen, noting down that they are problems contributing to sleeping late, and solve them individually (delete social media accounts, tell friends I’m unavailable after curfew, throw away all food in my room)
OR, maybe all these low level problems are caused by a single high level (having my phone with me in bed → leads to doomscrolling AND leads to seeing text messages to hang out AND leads to me seeing food videos which tempts me to eat food) And that means I can solve multiple smaller problems with 1 fix (ex. buy a timed phone lock box)
I say this to illustrate how one might progress along the journey after first learning about coordination problems. It’s like advancing a mental level, to gradually be able to pattern match low levels to the same high level and solve problems more effectively. It is desirable and encouraged to eventually gain this skill. But first, make sure that you are aware coordination problems exist at all, so that you can have a good approach to recognizing & addressing them in your life, reducing future demoralization and scratchings-of-the-head!
Imagine everybody knew about this and thought like this. Much more productivity and morale boost and actual solving of problems would happen
In the past, we did not live in a society where everyone could just do what they wanted and have life still be good for everyone. So “You need to provide value in return for the resources you consume” was valid in a “the alternative is that nobody is creating value and are only consuming, so society would not work” way.
If we’re heading to a society where AI can create so much value that most people don’t need to be working, then perhaps we’ll be able to transition to “everyone just does what they want and life is still good for everyone.”
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the post, I’m thinking the post is focusing on how it’s BS that people moralize about the value of “hard work,” and it’s playing with the concept of “having no life outside of work” being seen as good vs bad for the individual and high status vs low status. I agree that, from the individual lens, “no life outside of work” is bad for us and we shouldn’t pretend it’s not, and it’s not such an ideal state that it should always get rewarded by high status while “having a life outside of work” is punished by being comparatively low status.
But if we focus on the lens of society functioning, yeah, society probably will not function if the actually “good” ideal of “doing whatever you want” is realized before necessary systems of value automation are in place (separate from the degree of “having a life outside of work” at all, which is obviously good, but just because everyone is LARPing that the % of this being 0% is good, doesn’t imply that the alternative of 100% is better)
Yeah I guess I’m wanting to contribute this lens/interested in seeing discussion on, separate from the “work gives the individual meaning/prevents existential horror” argument (because yeah, that genuinely isn’t the point), it’s “how much work is right for every individual to be doing in order for society to function.”