You can get to the same place with loving acceptance instead of harshness, but I think that can be even harder. It works best IME when it’s coming from someone like a close friend or partner who is *credible* when they say they love you and they’re not trying to put you down.
-
-
You know “wilderness” is nearby when it feels — not acutely bad, but “are you sure we should be doing this? this is getting kind of bizarre. this would have some weird implications.”
Show this thread -
I don’t know what happens if you try leaning *into* the directions that take you to new places, rather than away from them; if you don’t try to slow down the “plot clock.” Maybe the inhibition is there for good reason! Here There Be Dragons.
Show this thread -
But, like, the creation of quantum physics theory would be an example of people going “well we *could* model it that way, but it would take us to some weird places” and then *not stopping* and going to the weird places.
Show this thread -
And quantum physics (and the Bomb) is both an example of a great human achievement and a top candidate for the thing that will ultimately destroy human life. So...beware I guess?
Show this thread -
EA is a great example of this. When a bunch of idealistic people try to ascertain how to do the most good, they come up with weird shit. “Actually no charities are good.” “Destroy the rainforests.” “Wirehead chickens.” “AI safety.” It’s never, like, “give to United Way.”
Show this thread -
Different people of course have different values for what’s good, but once you start trying to *optimize* them you leave the mainstream fast. Ecologists think in terms of saving ecosystems, not cute polar bears. Development economists think about institutions and infrastructure.
Show this thread -
You either get “arcane, abstract, boring” (legal details! administrative policy! spreadsheets and models!) or you get “bizarre supervillain shit” (gene drives! carbon capture! brain uploads!)
Show this thread -
Honest inquiry rarely leads to “just do a nice normal thing that you probably felt like you ought to do before but you never got around to.”
Show this thread -
If you just want your “inquiry” to reinforce what you already think, you had better put a lot of guardrails on it so it doesn’t spit out weird shit. Being scope sensitive at all leads to weird proposals.
Show this thread -
This doesn’t just apply to ethical questions. The way to literally make the most money is not gonna be the same as “do the most prestigious and glamorous thing that everyone associates with rich people.”
Show this thread -
The way to answer a scientific question is not gonna be the same as “do what proves to the world you’re the smartest and have mastered the trickiest techniques.”
Show this thread -
This comes back to judgment again; if you’re trying to achieve a goal you’re gonna get judged. And you’re gonna have to think about what if anything the judgment *means* or *refers to*, not just the experience of hearing it.
Show this thread -
Does the feedback *in fact* tell you that you should change your plan in real life? Why is the person giving that feedback? What does that tell you about the world?
Show this thread -
Back to judging people; I believe doing bad things is common. “So and so has this common character flaw” is not an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
Show this thread -
It doesn’t make sense to ostracize or punish the vast, vast majority of people you suspect of having character flaws.
Show this thread -
It also doesn’t make sense to flip the bozo bit on people just because you think they have a blind spot.
Show this thread -
I generally believe in being very very slow to conclude you have nothing to learn from someone. But also being quick to expect that almost everyone engage in behavior & thought patterns that harm themselves and others.
Show this thread -
“I can’t believe you’re accusing this lovely person of having self-flattering biases!” Well, it would be extraordinary if she didn’t!
Show this thread -
“Mistake vs conflict theory” is a false dichotomy. The most typical way people do harm is through subconscious motivation. There is optimization power steering towards the outcome you don’t like; but the person doesn’t have conscious control or insight into that process.
Show this thread -
Most people are usually wrong when we guess at others’ subconscious motivations; but it’s not a conspiracy theory or paranoia to believe most people have some disturbing subconscious motivations.
Show this thread -
Some particular examples: it’s not an extraordinary claim to say someone has racial, gender, or class biases towards siding with the higher-status groups in their society. Almost all people do to some degree.
Show this thread -
It’s not an extraordinary claim that someone stretches or spins the truth to make themselves look good. Almost everyone does to some degree.
Show this thread -
It’s not an extraordinary claim that most people won’t actually follow through on everything they say they care about.
Show this thread -
It’s not an extraordinary claim that someone has done something illegal, especially someone who runs an organization. There are a lot of laws, not all regularly enforced. It’s surprisingly easy to break one unintentionally.
Show this thread -
We get stuck in semantic debates of “is it really fair to use words to describe people that have negative connotations when the people in question aren’t *that* bad?”
Show this thread -
Trouble is, I don’t think we *have* great words to describe problems that don’t have a judgmental or condemnatory connotation.
Show this thread -
“Liar” is an insult and accusation; but lots of people really do stretch and spin the truth; arguing over whether it’s fair to name someone a liar is kind of a distraction from “what is this person saying, what does he believe, what do his listeners believe...
Show this thread -
what’s actually true, and what impact does it have that these things are different?”
Show this thread -
In general everyone underinvests in finding out what literally happens, what causes it, and what effects it has. We want to skip straight to reacting to it, especially socially and emotionally.
Show this thread -
This is why people have processes like "Five Whys" or experimental protocols or court trials with formal rules of evidence. "Ok what literally just happened here" will not usually be done well by default.
Show this thread - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.