In the last four years I’ve posted often on construal level theory. First discovered in the context of how differently people think about the distant future, construal level theory says that people think either using a near (concrete) mode, or a far (abstract) mode, or some intermediate mix. In far mode we tend to assume things are further away in time, space, social distance, with fewer relevant categories that are each more uniform internally. In near mode we do the opposite. There are lots more correlates.
Also point out that I think in near mode people are more selfish, in far mode, more concerned with others. If like me, you think more altruism would be helpful, that's a good reason to push for prime people for far mode.
I also like far mode because it makes people more receptive to my ideas on population ethics, which they are generally inclined to reject in near mode, but not for sound pragmatic reasons.
What kind of fraction would you estimate? Or perhaps, in far-mode, how much would you pay to have an angel-on-the-shoulder program that prevents you from doing things you are expected to heavily regret?
Since Disqus doesn't make clear who I'm responding to, Robin, or RobS, or anyone else can give their answers.
Hmm.. the last two Robin posts have been a bit on the authoritarian side. First the crowding out effect of the most helpful comments as a direct insult to the readership, so let's regulate/squelch, and now (my own summary), democratic peoples may lack the sophistication to understand the practical realities and complexities of modern policy-making and policy-executing and default to far/value-related heuristics... You better watch the throne, 'Ye; Robin Hanson's comin' for ya. Not disagreeing with you sir, just wondering what is the impetus for this thrust, or am I extrapolating on noise.
It isn't clear to me that these result from paying too much attention to practical constraints relative to basic values, instead of from choosing some basic values over others.
In immediate near decisions we eat unhealthy foods, don't go to the gym, procrastinate instead of opening the 401(k) account with free starting contribution from one's employer, get drunk the night before exams, have unprotected sex with sketchy characters leading to pregnancy or disease, drive home drunk, etc...
Whereas at a far distance we endorse plans to avoid these outcomes by signing up for advance payroll deductions of our investment contributions, buying gym memberships, ensuring we don't have tempting foods nearby, giving your car keys to someone else, etc. Paying attention to the long-term consequences of one's action for oneself
In these situations the bad consequences lie far in one's future, or are probabilistic (most acts of unprotected sex, drunk driving, and so forth won't lead to serious harm). And we observe that those with low time preference do better in income, life expectancy, well-being, etc, than those with high time preference.
If there are individual differences in construal-level patterns, I suggest looking to see whether they are correlated with those life success measures and time preference.
"For example, when everyone agrees on the importance of health and medicine, we get way too much medicine."Maybe, but why isn't it the case that since everyone agrees on the importance of health and medicine we don't get way too much medical research? Far values would seem to favor much more spending on research for cures, but we prefer to spend orders of magnitude more on things like long-term care that don't change health outcomes too much.
I disagree that near mode choices generally strike a good balance between practical constraints and basic values. Near mode choices often overvalue near term rewards over long term ones, and often therefore insufficiently consider basic values. Take your snooze button example. Hitting it multiple times on a given morning is almost a cliche. How is such behavior aligned with basic values?
A separate point: On the far side, one reason practical considerations are given less relative weight is that they are hard to predict. As you say, the world is complex, so it is extremely difficult to deal with and properly update the welter of possible combinations of circumstances, each with their associated probabilities, which may bear on a given long term decision (the contrast with that beeping alarm could not be more stark). Since the practical constraints are much fuzzier and more complex in far mode than in near mode, while one's basic values are fairly well known in both modes, it seems natural for the latter to play a larger role in far mode.
It might be easy, but can we say that it actually happens on average? Seems to me most people would in fact account a lot for their basic values in making such choices.
One dimension to consider, near choices are limited relative to far choices. So there is a bias experienced right away. Moreover, near choices are at higher risk for sub-optimization. You think you are on the tallest hill, but if you walk down the hill and continue to seek out hills, you might find the taller one that escaped your observation when you were near focused.
Not sure I follow this. Your examples of near choices are all trivial. What about: whether to join in bullying, whether to shoot at a burglar in your house, whether to take a bribe that's on the table. Surely it's very easy to neglect basic values when making near choices? In which case the premise that we usually get basic values v practical considerations right in near choices has not been demonstrated.
At the society level, far choices are policy choices. I wonder what could be categorized as far choices in the personal domain. Personal policies? Such as vegetarianism, no-alcohol, exercise regularly, etc.? I find it hard to believe that they could go wrong in the same way policy goes wrong. Too much exercise? I don't see too many people with that problem.It might have to do with the fact that in the personal case, the same person executes the policy as the person who made the policy. So, he/she is forced to consider the practicality vs. values trade-off in the near mode. But in the case of public policy, people who make the policy almost never have to make the near mode choices involved in executing the policy. So should have policy-executors be policy-makers?
Yep if near choices struck a good balance we would have fewer addicts.
What kinds of bad decisions in your own life have you made which were due to an excessive focus on basic values?
I came here to make exactly Carl's point.
Also point out that I think in near mode people are more selfish, in far mode, more concerned with others. If like me, you think more altruism would be helpful, that's a good reason to push for prime people for far mode.
I also like far mode because it makes people more receptive to my ideas on population ethics, which they are generally inclined to reject in near mode, but not for sound pragmatic reasons.
What kind of fraction would you estimate? Or perhaps, in far-mode, how much would you pay to have an angel-on-the-shoulder program that prevents you from doing things you are expected to heavily regret?
Since Disqus doesn't make clear who I'm responding to, Robin, or RobS, or anyone else can give their answers.
The post on comments was by Rob.
Hmm.. the last two Robin posts have been a bit on the authoritarian side. First the crowding out effect of the most helpful comments as a direct insult to the readership, so let's regulate/squelch, and now (my own summary), democratic peoples may lack the sophistication to understand the practical realities and complexities of modern policy-making and policy-executing and default to far/value-related heuristics... You better watch the throne, 'Ye; Robin Hanson's comin' for ya. Not disagreeing with you sir, just wondering what is the impetus for this thrust, or am I extrapolating on noise.
It isn't clear to me that these result from paying too much attention to practical constraints relative to basic values, instead of from choosing some basic values over others.
In immediate near decisions we eat unhealthy foods, don't go to the gym, procrastinate instead of opening the 401(k) account with free starting contribution from one's employer, get drunk the night before exams, have unprotected sex with sketchy characters leading to pregnancy or disease, drive home drunk, etc...
Whereas at a far distance we endorse plans to avoid these outcomes by signing up for advance payroll deductions of our investment contributions, buying gym memberships, ensuring we don't have tempting foods nearby, giving your car keys to someone else, etc. Paying attention to the long-term consequences of one's action for oneself
In these situations the bad consequences lie far in one's future, or are probabilistic (most acts of unprotected sex, drunk driving, and so forth won't lead to serious harm). And we observe that those with low time preference do better in income, life expectancy, well-being, etc, than those with high time preference.
If there are individual differences in construal-level patterns, I suggest looking to see whether they are correlated with those life success measures and time preference.
"A lot" perhaps, but a large *fraction*?
I guess that seems debatable to me, at least insofar as we make a lot of decisions we regret, or that our "better" far-mode selves would not endorse.
"For example, when everyone agrees on the importance of health and medicine, we get way too much medicine."Maybe, but why isn't it the case that since everyone agrees on the importance of health and medicine we don't get way too much medical research? Far values would seem to favor much more spending on research for cures, but we prefer to spend orders of magnitude more on things like long-term care that don't change health outcomes too much.
I disagree that near mode choices generally strike a good balance between practical constraints and basic values. Near mode choices often overvalue near term rewards over long term ones, and often therefore insufficiently consider basic values. Take your snooze button example. Hitting it multiple times on a given morning is almost a cliche. How is such behavior aligned with basic values?
A separate point: On the far side, one reason practical considerations are given less relative weight is that they are hard to predict. As you say, the world is complex, so it is extremely difficult to deal with and properly update the welter of possible combinations of circumstances, each with their associated probabilities, which may bear on a given long term decision (the contrast with that beeping alarm could not be more stark). Since the practical constraints are much fuzzier and more complex in far mode than in near mode, while one's basic values are fairly well known in both modes, it seems natural for the latter to play a larger role in far mode.
It might be easy, but can we say that it actually happens on average? Seems to me most people would in fact account a lot for their basic values in making such choices.
One dimension to consider, near choices are limited relative to far choices. So there is a bias experienced right away. Moreover, near choices are at higher risk for sub-optimization. You think you are on the tallest hill, but if you walk down the hill and continue to seek out hills, you might find the taller one that escaped your observation when you were near focused.
Not sure I follow this. Your examples of near choices are all trivial. What about: whether to join in bullying, whether to shoot at a burglar in your house, whether to take a bribe that's on the table. Surely it's very easy to neglect basic values when making near choices? In which case the premise that we usually get basic values v practical considerations right in near choices has not been demonstrated.
At the society level, far choices are policy choices. I wonder what could be categorized as far choices in the personal domain. Personal policies? Such as vegetarianism, no-alcohol, exercise regularly, etc.? I find it hard to believe that they could go wrong in the same way policy goes wrong. Too much exercise? I don't see too many people with that problem.It might have to do with the fact that in the personal case, the same person executes the policy as the person who made the policy. So, he/she is forced to consider the practicality vs. values trade-off in the near mode. But in the case of public policy, people who make the policy almost never have to make the near mode choices involved in executing the policy. So should have policy-executors be policy-makers?