Essentially, it is doing what works. Focusing on what works, within the current circumstances, even if not ideal, and evaluates theories and beliefs in terms of practicality. It may not be what you expect. For instance, not caring about how it will look on social media, caring more about functionality than aesthetics. For instance, using a plastic bag instead of designer handbags is simply because they are cheaper and do their job well. Doing the job properly is already sufficient and moderate in itself.
For most of mankind, energy resources were low. Thus precious. This
is Darwinism.
This can be the reason for what they call "laziness" amongst humans.
However, this could also be a pragmatic optimization. Workplaces may
reward this, but the education system may not. Thus, there can
be horrors, and a lack of motivation, when someone is forced to do tasks
they don't want to!
It could work against modern life, where there is lots to do.
The potential is high, but then actuality always turns out lower than
you expect (Also linked to Planning fallacy)
This is the path of least resistance.
Yet the modern environment has lots of food on demand, and has automated
lots of things! Food is easy. Food is yummy. Food is rewarding. This
became a spiral in a good way. Energy comes from food. Let's do more!
However, technically, nutritional energy may not become intrinsic
energy. Conserve energy with what you hate: prolonging it brings about
more hatred! Optimization is not laziness! If you already had human
biology, wanting to be efficient was the case all along.
Is Pragmatism a Tautology? (Doing what is "useful", when usefulness stuff is to enhance life) Is happiness a tautology too? (When the goal is to enhance life too) Or is it a mutual goal? Perhaps this can be applied to most low-level stuff.
However, sometimes you do really need to value societal opinions! For instance, saying stuff like "I just want money!" at a job interview is a no-no. And you may not get many friends if you look too stingy or dislike their "trends".
Philosophy isn't really a pragmatically common job with a consistent
wage, if at all...
I really can't get a philosophical qualification… because standardized
assessments don’t cover unique thinking. Standardized assessments reward
conformity
and obedience to the syllabus.
Rather, it's a flaw of the education system that it became essays and
examinations instead of critical thinking itself. Its use is more
so to boost other things, or alter your mental health in a good way, or
do the human-loved act of self-discovery.
Example 1: Wearing a tie. Though you KNOW that object is useless,
psychologically, it makes others think you look professional.
Example 2: Removing distracting objects from view, like your phone.
Though you KNOW that you do not need to touch it, impulses can get even
the best of us, so if you want to deep focus, you could put it
away.
In fact, now that I think about it, pragmatism has a lot to do with
decision-making - as "usefulness" (to our objectives) is pretty much the
bare bones of everything we choose to do with our free will.
Scientific method (in terms of money cost) - for most ordinary people it is way too costly to execute.
of thought]]