urshanabi

Another term for what you are describing which is philosophically untenable is relativism or if you are too far gone possible solipsism.

When I was younger, I'd save my lunch money for weeks to buy a game and fast during school. I'd do my best to fill my stomach with as much water as I could.

So am I :/ I pizza recently, I can't justify ordering it again this soon...

Does it really play ball in the context of metaethics?

I'll define morality and ethics as a normative system (operating on different levels of abstraction, with different targets as their focus, but maintaining the same kind of interaction) emergent from imperfect information transmission between any two points in space-time, i.e. the same body at t=n, t=m; or two different bodies at the same time (just to account for quantum stuff) which occur at level of complex life. I'll say life is any system with the capacity to maintain or decrease entropy (Schrödinger is where I first saw this) for some period of time, and intelligent life meets some threshold for delay or non-direct determinants of information from outside the continuous body to manipulate its environment to a lower entropy state, one which does not as of yet have the same quality of decreasing or maintaining entropy as the intelligent lifeform does.

In this case, metaethics is a distinction in the realm of a type of interactions yet still a part of them. It's like one pizza, you can cut it in half and say you have a left half and right each belonging to the meta and non-meta partitions. Or you can say that what we regularly refer to as morals or ethics is simply the toppings, metaethics is the dough which is frankly too frequently ignored in discussions of ethics and pizza-quality. The dough similarly provides the framework or support for the toppings, without which you would have a spread out cheesy and saucy salad (if veggies are a topping, otherwise you have what I make in the middle of the night when I don't want the microwave to sound off to warm up food that would fill me up) which couldn't be characterized as pizza.

Sorry I think I changed topic there, I hope some of the point comes across.

I'm probably in the Hume camp of skepticism and I like this meme :)

I hear you. I always found it to be very unfortunate :/

Hear hear, I'm the same way. I went further and tried it out and like a pokémon, hurt myself in confusion.

Of course! Here's is a link I have more resources as well if you'd like.

A quote from another article I have saved:

According to John Cacioppo, a social neuroscientist who specialized in the study of loneliness (he died in 2018), humans would have evolved a built-in bias against easily making friends because avoiding an enemy would have been more important than making a friend. “If I make an error and detect a person as a foe who turns out to be a friend, that’s O.K., I don’t make the friend as fast, but I survive,” Dr. Capiocco said in a 2017 interview in The Atlantic. “But if I mistakenly detect someone as a friend when they’re a foe, that can cost me my life. Over evolution, we’ve been shaped to have this bias.”

A link for the second article here

Ah, ok makes a ton of sense. Thanks for the response.

Interesting, thanks for the response. Robin Dunbar is a psychologist and anthropologist who studies friendship. His claim to fame is 'Dunbar's Number' which is a general statement of how many friends a person can have. It varies from person to person and is influenced by one's environment, age, beliefs, etc.

He has a way of expressing how relationships manifest themselves based in closeness, I have an here.

This seems to map to what you're saying. Another thing he said was that the more close friends you have, the less acquaintances you'll have, and vice versa. There are limits to the number of people you interact with and it can be seen as a sort of hierarchy.

I wanted to ask to get a better understanding: Why do you prefer more time with your kids and wife? Is the idea that your time is better spent to positively affect them and yourself (i.e. enjoying your time with family) and it's better to 'put your eggs in one basket' so to speak? That there is an investment required to have some kind of benefit to make it worthwhile to spend time with others and with family there is a predictable outcome? Do you ever actively engage in criteria to evaluate the methods, reasons, or heuristics you use to determine who to spend time with or who to allocate resources to?

My notion is more investment is given to those who we are closer to due to some perceived positive effect but those heuristics are only ever rules of thumb and wholly influenced by reasons outside of our control. The conclusion is made and then we work backwards to find justification.

I have a friend who spends every weekend with their family, in the infrequent times we do see one another they complain about their parent's misunderstanding and causing them distress. Rightfully so, as their parents are a bit old-fashioned to say the least. What confused me was, this is a bit machiavellian, they have already seemingly reaped many of the benefits from engaging with their parents and they may be better suited to distributing their time intentionally so as to have a better outcome for themselves and even their parents who are a bit reliant on them and whose ways are set-in further as the friend plays their part in the pattern. They are acclimatized to their environment (with their parents) and the extent that they can predictably or intentionally cause meaningful improvements or positive outcomes is set.

I always thought it would make sense to continually test alternative strategies because at any point one can become 'comfortable' at a given local minima or maxima more or less arresting any further development or change. The violent refusal when the topic is broached, and the absolute certainty to which they claimed their current method was superior caught me off-guard and made me confused.

Could I ask why you don't want to talk to half the people you know? I have the opposite issue where I try to talk to people I know but they don't reciprocate, I'm finding it hard to imagine the inverse.

It felt very condescending :/

I think you can congratulate or acknowledge someone's talents or skills without being off putting towards those who don't have them. I think the stuff the maker does is incredible and the tone by the journalist is strange, I would really like to know their reasoning to get a better understanding.