[RaVeN]

In light of Fluffy's post I thought I'd share a question from the writer Chuck Klosterman.
In one of his books he gives 23 questions that he asks to anyone close in his life.

Here is one of my favorite ones:

Someone builds an optical portal that allows you to see a vision of your own life in the future (it is essentially a crystal ball that shows you a randomly selected image of what your life will be like in twenty years). You can only see into this portal for thirty seconds.

When you peer into the crystal, you see yourself in a living room, two decades older than you are today. You are watching a Canadian football game and you are extremely happy. You are wearing a CFL jersey. You chair is surrounded by CFL books and magazines that promote the Canadian Football League, and there are CFL pennants covering your walls. You are alone in the room, but you are gleefully muttering about historical moments in Canadian football history.

It becomes clear that for some unknown reason you have become obsessed with Canadian football.
This future is static and absolute, no matter what you do, this future will happen. The optical portal is never wrong. This destiny cannot be changed.

The next day, you are flipping through television channels and randomly come across a pre-season CFL game between the Toronto Argonauts and the Saskatchewan Roughriders. Knowing your inevitable future, do you now watch it?


----------------------------------
And bonus question!

Defying all expectations, a group of Scottish marine biologists capture a live Loch Ness Monster.
In an almost unbelievable coincidence, a bear hunter shoots a Sasquatch in the thigh, thereby allowing zoologists to take the furry monster into captivity.

These events happen on the same afternoon.

That evening, the president announces he may have thyroid cancer and will undergo a biopsy later that week.

You are the front-page editor of The New York Times: What do you play as the biggest story?

[Frog]

To the first question-- I hate sports, so no. o_O
The second question is definitely the bear. I imagine America will breathe a large sigh of relief and I won't need to report on it tehhehehehehehe

[Fluffy]

1) Seeing as it's inevitable... I just carry on doing what I would do. If I had to choose, I wouldn't watch it, because today I'm not interested in football of any kind. I'll just let it play out.

2) Whichever story is going to net NYT the most money. NYT ain't paying me cuz I'm dashingly handsome, after all.

[Dopie]

I would avoid any and all things related to the CFL, to alter my destiny. Regardless of the prior knowledge that it's never wrong, and the future is inevitable. That future may be set in stone, but the one I am on the path of can be whatever I choose it to be.
____________________

I'd publish the article regarding the president undergoing surgery for the thyroid cancer. If my job is to print news, printing something that more people can relate to will obviously be the more popular article. Leave the animal discoveries for another news distributing outlet.

(Was I suppose to answer these? lol).

[Mnsomc]

The question itself is wrong. I just found out I will be immortal for 20 years. Instead of watching TV, I would have gone out and tried all the things that have scared me. The first thing that comes to mind is skydiving. After that, I will go hunt lions with bare hands.

[Fluffy]

The question itself is wrong. I just found out I will be immortal for 20 years. Instead of watching TV, I would have gone out and tried all the things that have scared me. The first thing that comes to mind is skydiving. After that, I will go hunt lions with bare hands.

Goddamnit, why didn't I think of this?

[MasterM]

I would not watch the CFL game because, at this present time, I have other things I could do that are much more interesting than watching a CFL preseason game.

In regards to the New York Times, I would print the President's cancer on the front page. It's an American news outlet, so a life-threatening condition to the leader of America would be much more important and immediate than the discoveries of the other animals.

[Uscari]

The question itself is wrong. I just found out I will be immortal for 20 years. Instead of watching TV, I would have gone out and tried all the things that have scared me. The first thing that comes to mind is skydiving. After that, I will go hunt lions with bare hands.

Goddamnit, why didn't I think of this?

Yeah I think Mns pretty much owned that question, so im going to just steal his answer for the first one lol.

As for the second question, the possible transition of leadership in the international stage seems infinitely more important to the human populace than a couple of arbitrary beasts.

[Fluffy]

So I had time to think about this one a little, and had a small epiphany of sorts. Please indulge me while I steal the spotlight. It'll just be for a minute. Or 3, if you end up reading all of it.

The scenario is written, and the question asked, to evoke the response of "ewwwww that's what I'm going to be?" And it's a brilliant red herring, because then we're led to 2 immediate answers.

1) Well I'll be damned if I let that be my future. Imma change that sucker no matter what, starting from today.
2) Well if that's what I'll be then I guess there's nothing I can do, even if I dislike it. Let's just try to enjoy the ride.

And then of course Mnsomc goes off to 3) hunt lions with his bare hands.

Taking a step back to think about this a bit more, we glean a few insights. For starters, if we ignore the red herrings, we can distill it down to a simple scenario: You've seen yourself 20 years into the future.

The fact that we have seen our future, we can start asking more interesting questions. Do we like what we see? If we don't like it, should we make an effort change what we've already been told is immutable? Now that we've seen our future, it changes how we see things. So, what if we were never given the chance to see our future, how would that change things?

I'm going to skip the predestination paradox, because while it's a great hypothetical construct to write great stories with, it has zero applications for us today. Let's revisit some of the questions listed above.

Do we like what we see?
Does it matter? I'd argue that the notion you will know yourself 20 years from now, just as well as you do today, is fundamentally wrong. Just because you didn't enjoy dark chocolate when you were 10 years old doesn't mean you will continue disliking dark chocolate when you're 30. Replace [dark chocolate], [10] and [30] with anything else of your choosing and you'll understand the argument.

If we don't like it, should we make an effort change what we've already been told is immutable?
Following on from question above. I'd argue you'd just live a miserable life until you realise how miserable you'd made yourself and just accept it and be happy.

Now that we've seen our future, it changes how we see things. So what if we were never given the chance to see our future, would that again change things?
This is the real kicker. The only question that matters. Wondering what if the other thing happened will make you far more miserable than trying to change your fate. You're always looking over your shoulder, wondering how green the grass is on the other side.

Conclusion: Don't dwell on the past. Learn from the past, focus on the present, and look to the future.

[Jack Skywalker]

Question 1

That question lacks some logic: it says the future won't change, no matter what I do. Though, there's one thing we need to keep in mind when answering such questions: the future can change at the moment we look at it. So, at the moment I see myself in the future, every following action I make will be a consequence of that moment. So, for the future I looked at to happen, I'd have to make every single step of my life like I hadn't seen that future. Otherwise, I could, for example, not watch a single CFL game for the rest of my life.

I find Mns' answer very funny, but what if he had choosen to kill himself? No more Mns watching CFL games, no more "static" future. The future that appeared on the optical portal is just one of the many futures we can have, depending on the choices we make. Seeing it just opened many more paths we could take in the next 20 years, and that's a lot of choices!

This way, I (finally) leave my answer: I don't watch it, because I'm not interested in Canadian football. I have many other things I'd like to do over watching Canadian football, like playing JKA, watching something on Netflix or even organizing a football game (soccer if you're from US) with my friends.

Question 2

No answer for you!

[Mnsomc]

Nicely written, Fluffy.

This time I'll approach this question assuming I'm stuck between either watching CFL or something else on TV, say an episode of Friends, which I'd love to watch.

If this post seems like a "tl;dr" one, I suggest you scroll to the bottom, where I have made a (hopefully brief) conclusion.

I think there's a point to make for this question, which can be essential in understanding the intent behind the question, but no one has addressed it yet.

Suppose I start every morning with a cup of coffee. I like drinking it, and can't function for the rest of the day without a cup of it.

Now suppose after 20 years, I change my daily daily routine to drinking a cup of tea instead. What happened? There are (at least) two explanations I can think of:

1. "Shift in preference" story: Ever since I tried a cup of tea when I was young, I've hated it the entire time. But after 10 years or so, my preference suddenly changed (for some reasons - could be due to a specific event or due to a normal course of "aging"), and now I do not like coffee as much, but love teas instead. Hence, I find myself drinking teas all the time 20 years later.

2. "Lack of information" story: I have always tried coffee, so did not know much about how teas are, in terms of how they might make my day better and how they taste. Every since I was young, I "settled" with coffee since it always worked for me - until one day (say, 10 years from now), a friend of mine suggests a cup of tea during lunch, I try it, and I like it. So after that, I change my daily routine to drinking a cup of tea.

Both scenarios fit perfectly with the question of interest, but have different implications.

Suppose I never liked CFL (the "shift in preference" story). But now I found out that, for some reasons, I will be a crazy fan of CFL 20 years later. I still don't like CFL as of now. Do I want to watch a CFL game on TV now? Probably not. I still don't like it, and I'll just have face the moment that shifts my preference when it happens. This line of thoughts is in the lines of Fluffy's.

However, what if we're under the "lack of information" story? Can you confidently say that you know CFL enough to say you're not a fan of it? I can't. I have watched some NFL games in my life, but have never watched a CFL game myself. Although I'm assuming they're pretty much the same, I have seen people who prefer CFL over NFL (granted, they are all Canadians), so there must be something different about CFL, which may be the reason I become a fan of it in the future.

In this line of thought, it may be worth it to watch the CFL game on TV and see if I really don't like it (even if my current impression of CFL already isn't that good). If, after making some attempts to understand the sport, I still don't like CFL, it goes back to the "shift in preference" story. However, until I make those attempts, I cannot say for sure whether watching a CFL game would benefit me or not, especially given I know I will be a fan of it in the future.

So we need to evaluate our pre-existing knowledge (not only impression) of CFL. Perhaps I watch that pre-season CFL game, and decide I like CFL from now on - then, I just found something I'll feel passionate for a very long time. Wouldn't it be worth it to spend some time to watch one game then?

So here's what I would do when I find out about my future and see a CFL game coming up: 1) think whether I know enough of CFL, 2) evaluate my preference (if it really exists) of CFL, then 3) decide whether to watch the game. Once the preference is set, I agree there is not much point in arguing whether I should "force" myself to like it if I don't. However, I think it's important to have a self-evaluation of known information and preference first.

Conclusion:
And this ties back to Fluffy's last question. If I know enough of CFL, then Fluffy's argument fits, and I will watch the game if and only if I like CFL now. In this regard, the extra information from the future is irrelevant, because I decide only based on my current preference. However, if I do not know enough of CFL, and I know in the future I will like it, then I will watch the game, because of the potential that I might find something I'll like for at least next two decades. In this case, the extra information from the future is relevant, because current preference is not firmly set.

Your current preference is important, but so is your current knowledge of CFL. The hidden intent behind the question, then, is to see whether you'd assume you know enough of CFL (in case you actually don't), and make decisions based on incomplete information. Again, if you really know well enough of CFL already, it falls back to Fluffy's point, but I wanted to point out there's another dimension to this question.

Another note, if you think you know enough of CFL, consider changing it to something that you don't know for the sake of question - say, a musician/band you hated all your life for some reason but you actually don't know much about him/her/them, and see if that changes your answer.

[RaVeN]

Both Fluffy and Mns touched on the big reason why I like this question.

The key part of the question for me is the line that in the future "you are extremely happy".
No matter what you are feeling today, you will be happy in the future.

The question then goes out of it's way to paint an inevitable pathetic picture, in the hopes that it deters you from embracing this future.

Even though it's not an ideal happiness, will you embrace your 'wonderful' fate or will you fight against, in the end, what is in your best interest?

That's the bigger question.

The smaller question I also like: sitting there on the couch and coming across the CFL game...are you even remotely curious? Maybe even give it 1,2...5 minutes of watching?

I mean think about it, this could be the moment that propels your inevitable future. This could be the most pivotal moment of your life at this VERY SECOND on the couch.

...or it might not.

How many people get the chance to choose this experience?

And you're telling me you're not even curious about it?
Maybe even a little scared?

I feel like some of you are not appreciating the possible gravity of the moment


----------------------
For those curious - For the newspaper article question:

I would put Bigfoot front and center and the Loch Ness below the fold.
At the end of both articles I would link to a further article in the paper about how the hunt for the Abominable Snowman is 'Heating Up' (get it?)

On the short headlines on the front page I would have the President's News linking to an article later in the paper, prob page 2 or 3.

The thing is, while the president's news is News, his surgery is not happening until later in the week. Plenty of time to cover that story, especially the day of the surgery.

[Fluffy]

As my friends used to say... MOAR!!