I really like Bob Fischer’s point #4 from deep within the comment threads of his recent post and thought to share it more widely, seemed like wise advice to me:
FWIW, my general orientation to most of the debates about these kinds of theoretical issues is that they should nudge your thinking but not drive it. What should drive your thinking is just: “Suffering is bad. Do something about it.” So, yes, the numbers count. Yes, update your strategy based on the odds of making a difference. Yes, care about the counterfactual and, all else equal, put your efforts in the places that others ignore. But for most people in most circumstances, they should look at their opportunity set, choose the best thing they think they can sweat and bleed over for years, and then get to work. Don’t worry too much about whether you’ve chosen the optimal cause, whether you’re vulnerable to complex cluelessness, or whether one of your several stated reasons for action might lead to paralysis, because the consensus on all these issues will change 300 times over the course of a few years.
+1! I’d add that we care about being right as a group, not being right as each individual. I don’t think the most efficient distribution of resources looks like each individual spending years on their own cause prioritisation, making drastic career switches every year or so etc…
Thanks for sharing, Mo. I liked that point to understand @Bob Fischer’s general orientation better. At the same time, I did not find it that insightful. I think it makes a point while providing very little argument for it, and I do not seem to agree with the sentiment about the impact of moral views on cause prioritisation. It makes sense to have 4 years with an impact of 0 throughout a career of 44 years to increase the impact of the remaining 40 years (= 44 − 4) by more than 10 % (= 4⁄40). In this case, the impact would not be 0 “in most circumstances” (40/44 = 90.9 % > 50 %). So I very much agree with a literal interpretation of Bob’s statement. However, I feel like it conveys that moral views, and cause prioritisation are less important than what they actually are.
I really like Bob Fischer’s point #4 from deep within the comment threads of his recent post and thought to share it more widely, seemed like wise advice to me:
+1! I’d add that we care about being right as a group, not being right as each individual. I don’t think the most efficient distribution of resources looks like each individual spending years on their own cause prioritisation, making drastic career switches every year or so etc…
Thanks for sharing, Mo. I liked that point to understand @Bob Fischer’s general orientation better. At the same time, I did not find it that insightful. I think it makes a point while providing very little argument for it, and I do not seem to agree with the sentiment about the impact of moral views on cause prioritisation. It makes sense to have 4 years with an impact of 0 throughout a career of 44 years to increase the impact of the remaining 40 years (= 44 − 4) by more than 10 % (= 4⁄40). In this case, the impact would not be 0 “in most circumstances” (40/44 = 90.9 % > 50 %). So I very much agree with a literal interpretation of Bob’s statement. However, I feel like it conveys that moral views, and cause prioritisation are less important than what they actually are.
yeah i loved this a lot as well, interestingly was thinking of quoting it for a quick take as well.