21–30 of 149 posts
This is not what many, if not most people do, or want to do, when they "try to do good". They simply want to do something based on what _they_ see as 'good'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks > They are talking about 'reducing extinction risk' being a field of study. And the risks of doing damage to a that new field with early research. Then this is an unfortunately named field to introduce first, given that the article is about 'risks' which are not 'fields'
'risk X' is a risk, and 'reducing risk X' is a field. There is the (meta-)risk that you harm a field (the 'harming field Y' risk). They're studying that (meta-)risk here, in an attempt to reduce it. The article is thus squarely in the 'reducing risk Z (of harming field Y (of reducing risk X)))' field. Your misunderstanding of it poses certain risks, that this comment attempts to reduce, with a concomitant risk of fai…
I feel weirdly (perhaps irrationally) about the effective altruism people including 80,000 hours. I just can't shake the cult-y vibes they give off. Am I alone in this?
For example I don't dislike Nick Bostrom but I feel like he's being quoted so uncritically in this article - not totally unlike how a few years ago some HN commenters could quote Paul Graham essays as holy scripture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many pro-choice people do you think are persuaded by Symmetrically, how many pro-life people do you think are persuaded by the people screaming "woman-hater/sexist/misogynist" outside of Planned Parenthood? If you can't explain your argument in a calm, rational manner, You overestimate the efficacy of explaining in a calm, rational manner. As a university teacher with > 10 years experience, I can tell you with ex…
people often don't do what's best for them. But that's a separate issue from trying to convince someone to join your cause. If you're representing advocacy group X and you're being melodramatic and throwing a tantrum, rather than pinpointing the issues you want to solve and proposing solutions, I'm much more likely to think that said group is composed of adult babies making childish complaints and unworthy of respect…
Both are attempting to force change or prevent change. For all values in calm rational discussion pleasant discussion, it does not bring change. It makes you pleasant, but does not really bring results where real stakes are in question.
This is very interesting! But I've seen a lot of push back against this kind of thinking in some political groups. For example saying that you should follow norms of niceness when promoting a cause - people call that tone policing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing You could say you should criticise the people who are tone policing rather than the people who are worked up about a cause that personally effec…
If you sound like a shouty crank with a weird idea then good luck trying to get public + politicians to make said idea happen.
It seems the internal dynamics of political groups can reward being shouty and extreme. So yeah I can imagine the message doesn't go down well there and is met with: 'yeah but X is SO important'.
I feel weirdly (perhaps irrationally) about the effective altruism people including 80,000 hours. I just can't shake the cult-y vibes they give off. Am I alone in this?
The only thing I can put my finger on is this: those organisations - and this article - present themselves as being above-average rational and insightful. At least that's my impression. Yet many of these suggestions seem to be speculation based on very small data, for example the point about them not having competitors. Many others could simply be rephrased as "take a holistic view", for example considering whether recruiting people to your company is good for the cause as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, there is some insight here, it's well-written, and some of these heuristics might turn out to be helpful to some people. I just think that the website it's published on is inflating its perceived significance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who criticize tone police are technically right that the content of an argument is what should matter, but that smacks of ignorance of how humans engage in conversation. If someone is screaming at me and ending every sentence with, "you fucking moron!", there is approximately a 0% chance I'm going to take them seriously and I'm going to assume emotional outbursts will be sent in return to any responses I care…
How many pro-choice people do you think are persuaded by Symmetrically, how many pro-life people do you think are persuaded by the people screaming "woman-hater/sexist/misogynist" outside of Planned Parenthood? If you can't explain your argument in a calm, rational manner, You overestimate the efficacy of explaining in a calm, rational manner. As a university teacher with > 10 years experience, I can tell you with ex…
This is very interesting! But I've seen a lot of push back against this kind of thinking in some political groups. For example saying that you should follow norms of niceness when promoting a cause - people call that tone policing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing You could say you should criticise the people who are tone policing rather than the people who are worked up about a cause that personally effec…
In practice, it’s pretty easy to tell the difference.
I feel weirdly (perhaps irrationally) about the effective altruism people including 80,000 hours. I just can't shake the cult-y vibes they give off. Am I alone in this?
I certainly hope that I'm mistaken, but that sounds awfully a lot like a pro - eugenics bit of propaganda.
Personally, I would suggest that people with a clear intent toward 'love thy neighbor' rather than 'We're the best set of people to fix your problem for you' is best for humanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who criticize tone police are technically right that the content of an argument is what should matter, but that smacks of ignorance of how humans engage in conversation. If someone is screaming at me and ending every sentence with, "you fucking moron!", there is approximately a 0% chance I'm going to take them seriously and I'm going to assume emotional outbursts will be sent in return to any responses I care…
How many pro-choice people do you think are persuaded by Symmetrically, how many pro-life people do you think are persuaded by the people screaming "woman-hater/sexist/misogynist" outside of Planned Parenthood? If you can't explain your argument in a calm, rational manner, You overestimate the efficacy of explaining in a calm, rational manner. As a university teacher with > 10 years experience, I can tell you with ex…
That's quite one-sided...