more than as something which “improves coordination”
What makes you say that? I have the sense that the less trauma people have, the easier they’ll find it, and the more desire they’ll have, to co-operate and coordinate.
What makes you think that this secondary effect, which requires trauma reduction in an enormous number of people (to generate network effects) or a tightly-knit group of people, would have a greater impact than the primary effect of “people have less trauma and feel better”?
What makes you say that? I have the sense that the less trauma people have, the easier they’ll find it, and the more desire they’ll have, to co-operate and coordinate.
What makes you think that this secondary effect, which requires trauma reduction in an enormous number of people (to generate network effects) or a tightly-knit group of people, would have a greater impact than the primary effect of “people have less trauma and feel better”?
Thanks for that question! Weakly held. Some sense that we’re under-invested in “improving coordination” (see: http://www.existential-risk.org/concept.pdf).
But it’s a good point that it would be hard! And I agree that tightly knit groups may be a better approach for this.
e.g. trauma reduction for a group of AI safety researchers to help them better coordinate, or something like that.
And I’m also very interested in the direct impact, too.