I would disagree—although the ‘rules of the game’ are created by individuals, they are larger than any one individual and difficult to change by any one individual despite their best effort.
But that’s a bit of a tangent—I can see why you thought it was relevant.
Right – when we’re looking for ways to improve coordination, we should consider interventions at both the systemic level and the individual level.
It seems obvious that there’s a close relationship between the two levels. If the causal relationships between levels are murky, that implies casting a wide net when surveying potential interventions. (If we can’t see the causal relationships clearly at the start, we can’t confidently rule out interventions on either level.)
I don’t read this Forum post as suggesting individual within EA are uncooperative, but rather that EA institutions/teachings are uncooperative.
Institutional decision-making is the aggregate of individual decision-making, right?
I would disagree—although the ‘rules of the game’ are created by individuals, they are larger than any one individual and difficult to change by any one individual despite their best effort.
But that’s a bit of a tangent—I can see why you thought it was relevant.
Right – when we’re looking for ways to improve coordination, we should consider interventions at both the systemic level and the individual level.
It seems obvious that there’s a close relationship between the two levels. If the causal relationships between levels are murky, that implies casting a wide net when surveying potential interventions. (If we can’t see the causal relationships clearly at the start, we can’t confidently rule out interventions on either level.)