I generally like arguments from humility, but I think youâre overstating the difficulty of choosing the better candidate. E.g. in 2016 only one candidate had any sort of policy at all about farmed animals, so it didnât require a very extensive policy analysis to figure out who is preferable. The same is true for other EA focus areas.
I agree. I do not think that promoting vote pairing irrespective of the candidates is a very useful thing to do.
2016 only one candidate had any sort of policy at all about farmed animals, so it didnât require a very extensive policy analysis to figure out who is preferable.
Beware of unintended consequences, though. The path from âNice things are written about X on a candidateâs promotional materialsâ to âOverall, X improvedâ is a very circuitous one in human politics.
The same is true for other EA focus areas.
A lot of people in EA seem to assume, without a thorough argument, that direct support for certain political tribes is good for all EA causes. I would like to see some effort put into something like a quasi realistic simulation of human political processes to back up claims like this. (Not that I am demanding specific evidence before I will believe these claimsâjust that it would be a good idea). Real-world human politicking seems to be full of crucial considerations.
I also feel like when we talk about human political issues, we lack an understanding of, or donât bother to think about, the causal dynamics behind how politics works in humans. I am specifically talking about things like signalling
In order to think vote trading is a good idea, you have to think that, with some reasonable amount of work, you can predict the better candidate at a rate which outperforms chance.
Humility is important, but thereâs a difference between âpolitics is hard to predict perfectlyâ and âpolitics is impossible predict at allâ.
thereâs a difference between âpolitics is hard to predict perfectlyâ and âpolitics is impossible predict at allâ.
I think thereâs a lot of improvement to be had in the area of ârefining which direction we are pushing inâ.
Was there ever a well-prosecuted debate about whether EA should support Clinton over Trump, or did we just sort of stumble into it because the correct side is so obvious?
Thanks for the feedback!
I generally like arguments from humility, but I think youâre overstating the difficulty of choosing the better candidate. E.g. in 2016 only one candidate had any sort of policy at all about farmed animals, so it didnât require a very extensive policy analysis to figure out who is preferable. The same is true for other EA focus areas.
I agree. I do not think that promoting vote pairing irrespective of the candidates is a very useful thing to do.
Beware of unintended consequences, though. The path from âNice things are written about X on a candidateâs promotional materialsâ to âOverall, X improvedâ is a very circuitous one in human politics.
A lot of people in EA seem to assume, without a thorough argument, that direct support for certain political tribes is good for all EA causes. I would like to see some effort put into something like a quasi realistic simulation of human political processes to back up claims like this. (Not that I am demanding specific evidence before I will believe these claimsâjust that it would be a good idea). Real-world human politicking seems to be full of crucial considerations.
I also feel like when we talk about human political issues, we lack an understanding of, or donât bother to think about, the causal dynamics behind how politics works in humans. I am specifically talking about things like signalling
In order to think vote trading is a good idea, you have to think that, with some reasonable amount of work, you can predict the better candidate at a rate which outperforms chance.
Humility is important, but thereâs a difference between âpolitics is hard to predict perfectlyâ and âpolitics is impossible predict at allâ.
I think thereâs a lot of improvement to be had in the area of ârefining which direction we are pushing inâ.
Was there ever a well-prosecuted debate about whether EA should support Clinton over Trump, or did we just sort of stumble into it because the correct side is so obvious?