If you're talking politics, you need to take a step back and ask how useful your questions are. It may be tempting to try solving a conflict that has a long history by finding out "who started it", but if the answer would yield no progress in the peace process, it would be a better use of time and energy to focus on other discussions.

I've used it as an economic philosophy as well. Instead of looking at capitalism and socialism as ideologies to guide thought, look at them as tools to an end. Identify your goals for society (more educated populace, lower infant mortality, greater freedom of the press, etc.) and then look at what different perspectives bring for solutions. Sometimes you may find letting a free market take it's course is an answer. Sometimes you may find deep regulation or nationalization is the answer.

When this philosophy is applied to something more personal like religion, it would ask "is the religion that you are in helping you or hindering you?" If someone's religion gives them immense guilt and depression, it would be worth it to consider something else. If an alcoholic finds peace in a Mormon Temple, then it might just be what they need. It's a pretty chill philosophy when it comes to religion.

[–] navigatron@beehaw.org 3 points 8 months ago

Thank you, that’s an excellent read! This reminds me of the “expected value of perfect information” - sometimes it is worthwhile to answer a question, and sometimes it isn’t. Every once in a while I find myself in an engineering call discussing a minor problem, and I run the numbers to see if the change we are discussing is even worth talking about. One time the combined salaries of the people on the call had already outpaced the cost savings of the change over the next 10 years. We quickly stopped that discussion lol