Conversation

The galaxy brain version of this question would be “after adjusting for your foresight into consequences” Choosing inconvenience doesn’t count if you do it to avoid a greater long-term net inconvenience. Ie it has to be choosing higher NPV of path inconvenience for “growth”.
Quote Tweet
Ah found the right question for what I’m actually drilling for. What was the top example in your life when you choose inconvenience over convenience when you didn’t have to? How did it turn out?
Show this thread
6
8
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.
2
11
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.
Replying to
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.
1
4