A hero means roughly what you’d expect—someone who takes personal responsibility for solving world problems. Kind of like an effective altruist.
In that case doesn’t the sort of “sidekick” that Miranda describes count as a hero, because being a sidekick is plausibly one of the best ways that they can contribute to solving the world’s problems?
I was wondering what rationalist heroes are supposed to do more specifically—can you shed any light on that? :)
I think if you’re having difficulty understanding what they mean by hero, it’s because you’re thinking too concretely, not because people are using the word in an atypical way. I can try to describe the tasks anyway—often they’re someone who uses skills like bravery, leadership and insight to perform difficult and important tasks for society’s benefit. But you can be a hero without meeting those specific criteria. It’s more of an aesthetic.
In that case doesn’t the sort of “sidekick” that Miranda describes count as a hero, because being a sidekick is plausibly one of the best ways that they can contribute to solving the world’s problems?
I was wondering what rationalist heroes are supposed to do more specifically—can you shed any light on that? :)
I think if you’re having difficulty understanding what they mean by hero, it’s because you’re thinking too concretely, not because people are using the word in an atypical way. I can try to describe the tasks anyway—often they’re someone who uses skills like bravery, leadership and insight to perform difficult and important tasks for society’s benefit. But you can be a hero without meeting those specific criteria. It’s more of an aesthetic.