Opportunity Cost and Saying No

People say to pursue dreams and when you pursue a dream, you encounter many opportunities. These opportunities come in various forms: a different city, company or even a shift in your field.

But is it really good to say yes to everything? It seems fine in theory. By saying yes, we are introduced to various benefits but as they say, don’t bite more than you can chew.

In theory, we generalize terms but in reality, there are grades and a hidden cost behind every opportunity. Things are never equal and same: that’s only in theory. In reality, we even deal with situations where the opportunity looks good but the hidden cost is very high.

For example, a better job. The question of what defines a better job is a valid one. It may mean lifestyle, commute, work-life balance etc but most people don’t think this: they only consider salary as the metric whether the job is better.

This plays into a common problem the corporate world experiences: Job A is your current one while Job B pays 30% more. You instantly change jobs but only later realize that, this job is double the commute and longer working hours for just a 30% salary increase. Is it worth it? Depends but in my opinion, even someone desperate for money knows that it’s not a profitable offer.

A profitable offer where you do gain positives in almost all aspects of the job, not just salary but by paying up the hidden fees, you don’t end up with a profitable offer, just one that sacrifices your other aspects of life for your salary.

Calculating how much we gain and lose from all metrics is considered an opportunity cost.

Read More

Intention Versus Consequence

It’s interesting to think about what matters more in our lives. Most of ethics and its challenges can be summed up as a battle between intentions and consequences.

There are ethical standpoints like Utilitarianism that state that intentions do not matter and only consequences do. This means that it doesn’t matter even if an evil person is evil because he accidently did good consequences and this extends far beyond where it’s okay to have slaves since it benefits most people.

But regardless when we judge people, should we hold their intention or consequences to a greater degree?

If someone commits a crime then should we care more that he had a good intention or rather what consequences came from his actions whether intentional or not nor whether it was good or not.

This battle has been one that philosophers have been fighting for a long while (from the beginning). From an ethical standpoint, it seems obvious to consider both intention and its consequences.

If we care about intention, that may mean we want to protect well-intentioned people even though they may be naive but if we do the opposite: it means that we consider the side effects it has on society.

A good example of this is giving away the villagers' fish instead of teaching them how to hunt it. Giving it away may be of good intention but from a consequence standpoint, it’s far less beneficial than teaching it.

Read More

Probabilistic Thinking

We have a lot of things going on in our lives. Many things can improve our lives but have you thought of that one tool you use daily yet almost never improve or think about deeply?

It’s thinking.

Yes, read that again. It’s thinking. It’s considered subconscious and irrelevant but the perspective and context at which we portray that event obviously helps. Of course, we all know this from psychology or a philosophy called Stoicism.

But today, we aren’t focusing on that aspect of our thinking. We are going to talk about probabilistic thinking.

Thinking in terms of probability is incredibly helpful. Why do you ask? Because it simply portrays the world as a place of accidents of fortune and misfortune.

I am not saying you aren’t a part of the solution or the problem but what I’m saying is that, most of the time it’s not about you or even if it were about you, it’s a minor contribution.

Let’s say taking your car is the best case scenario in terms of probability for safety and thus, survival but as a result of taking the car at that time and circumstance, you have died.

Certainly, in terms of probability it has the highest survival rate but just because a probability is small doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

In fact, taking the motorcycle would have saved you in this particular instance even though it has a lower probability of being alive.

While this sounds incredibly pessimistic since the world is out of our hands, it’s also incredibly relieving with the right context.

Read More

Our Percieved Empathy

Just like the title suggested, it’s about the discrepancy of empathy based on how things are told or seen. For example, why do we take the case of a plane crash so seriously and tragic if it includes only a few hundred people while we neglect and dismiss the case of a year's report of car crashes as normal? Both cases are tragic of course but the empathy levels we show are vastly different. That being said, it would not be wrong to say this is due to the feeling of self-control we have during a car versus the uncontrollable fate of an airplane but I think you get the rough meaning what I mean.

I got this topic today thanks to Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson's debate back in 2018.

While it was released in 2018, I only listened to it in 2022. Of course, it’s still three years from now which is a long time but the reason I am writing this is because I found the concept remarkable back then as well today which is why I’m sharing it here.

Read More

Types of Reasoning

Our thoughts form a conclusion and a conclusion is formed by reasoning. Reasoning enables us to assess a situation and an answer to it.

Despite its importance, we neglect it. We don’t think thoroughly as to why and how we reached a conclusion. By understanding that though, we can change our lives completely. After all, reasoning remains with us from birth till death.

There are three types of reasoning: Deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is the most straightforward one. This is the one we have studied in mathematics at school. It relies on the premises being true and if the premises is true then we can draw a conclusion to be true depending on the situation.

If the question is whether Rahul is a mammal then we can go to our premise that all humans are mammals so we conclude that Rahul is a mammal.

However, it must be noted that in this reasoning we assume that the premise is valid and under such an assumption, we form a conclusion. If the premise is false then the argument may be logically correct but is false and the premise and conclusion cannot be the same since if they were, it would be circular reasoning.

Read More