I think I understand this better now. Convenience is always a satisficing choice. If all you care about is “good enough” on a few dimensions, many candidates fit, and the slack can be cashed out as saved energy. Inconvenience = desiring something unique that costs what it costs.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Thanks jack for shedding light on this matterhttps://twitter.com/kintsukuroikun/status/1133613667587543040?s=21 …
Show this thread -
The most common answer to my original question was “having children”. The prototypical “it costs what it costs” decision to bring a unique entity into your life rather than a conveniently satisficing entity like a low-maintenance pet.
Show this thread -
Adoption is a great test decision. Whether pets or kids you can make it as easy or as hard for yourself as you like. Example adopting a special needs child who would really inconvenience your life. Very few do that outside of religious motives.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
For all the important questions, calculations about the consequences are intractable, and tradition/upbringing tell you to choose inconvenience, and 90% of the time you go with it, because the inconvenience is lindy.
-
Hmm I’m not sure I buy this. If it were we wouldn’t have shifted en masse to conveniences like fridges and air conditioning
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This question is too inconvenient to answer even for me
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So only choosing inconvenience if you know it's stupid? I don't think I've ever done that.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How could growth not prevent a greater long-term net inconvenience?
-
Exactly!!
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.