Pareto Improving Life Policy

My life policy is to always improve at everything that matters. Once I establish that something in my life matters, I am not allowed to get worse at it. If I begin to get worse at something, I think long and hard about whether it actually matters. Usually it turns out to not have mattered much. Why?Let fi be my score on axis i, say lean muscle mass, conflict resolution, writing skill, charisma, etc. Let Δfi be the change in fi across a candidate life policy. I see two primary ways to decide what changes to accept. Weighted sum: accept a change only if ∑iwiΔfi>0, for some chosen weights wi≥0. Pareto dominance: accept a change only if Δfi≥0 for every i. Future w is unpredictable. My preferences will change over time in ways I cannot forecast. Δfi≥0 for every i implies ∑iwiΔfi≥0 for every wi≥0, so acting according to Pareto dominance guarantees progress in the weighted sum. That is to say, Pareto optimal is robust to future reweighting. However, ∑iwiΔfi≥0 for a single w implies neither…