person on deathbed: I should have lived more in the present moment my whole life... you: Ok but high time preference is only a good strategy if your future is very short or very bleak
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @gracecondition
If you body and environment heal quickly, you can damage them often for fun and profit.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @preinfarction @gracecondition
You can pick crops more and tend them less in fertile areas. You can behave worse with peers if they're more forgiving or forgetful. You can pull more all-nighters when you're young. Shorter time horizons in decision making are adaptive, if not moral, in some non-tragic contexts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @preinfarction
i don't think any of those examples require a shorter time horizon a short time horizon would be picking more crops than is sustainable. or picking only the crops you need now and not picking any for the coming winter
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gracecondition
I think maybe you're compressing a continuous range of discount rates into two categories, and placing the cut-off precisely where "short" = "maladaptive", but low time preference can be maladaptive too. Like anyone who lets strawberries mold in the fridge is not consuming enough
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @preinfarction
maybe we're using words differently? time preference = discount time horizon = n steps to look ahead (or λ in TD(λ)) if you're only looking ahead 10 steps (and it's feasible to look ahead more) when you know you're def gonna live > 1000 steps, your time horizon is too low
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
also like.. maybe it's confusing because 'low time preference' doesn't mean 'time preference is too low' (0.3 is a low time preference but it can still be too high)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.