Ways people trying to do good accidentally do harm instead and how to avoid them
1–10 of 149 posts
Re: Ways people trying to do good accidentally do harm instead and how to avoid them
#2Thanks. You use the word 'field' 54 times and 'risk' 33 times in the article but never explain what you mean by them. I found this confusing. E.g. at one point you say that 'reducing extinction risk' is a field, but then later say that not every risk is pressing in every field. Is 'reducing extinction risk' both a field and a risk?
Re: Ways people trying to do good accidentally do harm instead and how to avoid them
#3Because the desire to do a good deed causes people to discount the ramifications of detrimental effects by rationalizing with the “it was for the best” adage
Re: Ways people trying to do good accidentally do harm instead and how to avoid them
#4Because the desire to do a good deed causes people to discount the ramifications of detrimental effects by rationalizing with the “it was for the best” adage
Which is why Avengers: Infinity War (Thanos) was the only Marvel movie I ever liked.
Re: Ways people trying to do good accidentally do harm instead and how to avoid them
#5Thanks. You use the word 'field' 54 times and 'risk' 33 times in the article but never explain what you mean by them. I found this confusing. E.g. at one point you say that 'reducing extinction risk' is a field, but then later say that not every risk is pressing in every field. Is 'reducing extinction risk' both a field and a risk?
field: A particular field is a particular subject of study or type of activity.
So the authors are using 'field' to mean area of study which has standard usage in English I think so probably didn't need to be explained further.
When the authors wrote: "Nonetheless we think cataloguing these risks is important if we’re going to be serious about having an impact in important but ‘fragile’ fields like reducing extinction risk."
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.
Re: Ways people trying to do good accidentally do harm instead and how to avoid them
#6Thanks. You use the word 'field' 54 times and 'risk' 33 times in the article but never explain what you mean by them. I found this confusing. E.g. at one point you say that 'reducing extinction risk' is a field, but then later say that not every risk is pressing in every field. Is 'reducing extinction risk' both a field and a risk?
field: A particular field is a particular subject of study or type of activity. So the authors are using 'field' to mean area of study which has standard usage in English I think so probably didn't need to be explained further. When the authors wrote: "Nonetheless we think cataloguing these risks is important if we’re going to be serious about having an impact in important but ‘fragile’ fields like reducing extinctio…
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'
Re: Ways people trying to do good accidentally do harm instead and how to avoid them
#7I 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?
Re: Ways people trying to do good accidentally do harm instead and how to avoid them
#8This 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 effects them so aren't managing to be very polite, but the problem is not the people who try to tone police you, it's the people who don't like your tone and don't criticise you for it - they silently just ignore your cause or vote against it.
Re: Ways people trying to do good accidentally do harm instead and how to avoid them
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
field: A particular field is a particular subject of study or type of activity. So the authors are using 'field' to mean area of study which has standard usage in English I think so probably didn't need to be explained further. When the authors wrote: "Nonetheless we think cataloguing these risks is important if we’re going to be serious about having an impact in important but ‘fragile’ fields like reducing extinctio…
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 failure, but that gets a bit complicated.
Re: Ways people trying to do good accidentally do harm instead and how to avoid them
#10This 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…
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 to make.
How many pro-choice people do you think are persuaded by the people screaming "murderer" outside of Planned Parenthood?
People have a limited amount of time to deal with all of the issues in the world. If you can't explain your argument in a calm, rational manner, people who are on the fence will shut you out.
See what Howard Dean's screaming did to his campaign.