Meanwhile, there were doubts from others who didn’t feel this way. The “we need heroes, the world needs heroes” narrative is especially strong in the rationalist community.
What are rationalist heroes supposed to do? And what can “sidekicks” do to help them? (I ask these questions as someone who’s not that familiar with the rationalist community.)
A hero means roughly what you’d expect—someone who takes personal responsibility for solving world problems. Kind of like an effective altruist. A sidekick doesn’t have any specific jargon meaning.
For a bit more flavour, here’s a description from hpmor:
You could call it heroic responsibility, maybe,” Harry Potter said. “Not like the usual sort. It means that whatever happens, no matter what, it’s always your fault. Even if you tell Professor McGonagall, she’s not responsible for what happens, you are. Following the school rules isn’t an excuse, someone else being in charge isn’t an excuse, even trying your best isn’t an excuse. There just aren’t any excuses, you’ve got to get the job done no matter what.” Harry’s face tightened. “That’s why I say you’re not thinking responsibly, Hermione. Thinking that your job is done when you tell Professor McGonagall—that isn’t heroine thinking. Like Hannah being beat up is okay then, because it isn’t your fault anymore. Being a heroine means your job isn’t finished until you’ve done whatever it takes to protect the other girls, permanently.” In Harry’s voice was a touch of the steel he had acquired since the day Fawkes had been on his shoulder. “You can’t think as if just following the rules means you’ve done your duty. –HPMOR, chapter 75.
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.
A hero means roughly what you’d expect—someone who takes personal responsibility for solving world problems. Kind of like an effective altruist.
What I understand about rationality ‘heroes’ is limited to what I’ve gleaned from Miranda’s post, but to me it seems like earning to give fits much more naturally into a sidekick category than into a hero category.
I see the hero as the one pushing innovative new strategies for world-changing (eg. starting a business in that area, like Givewell—specifics subject to what changes the hero wants to make), while the sidekicks are the ones that help out by being employed in that business (in a non-directing role) or donating to it or providing moral support etc. - they help what’s already been created do better, and thus have to choose from people/causes that already exist rather than creating their own.
What are rationalist heroes supposed to do? And what can “sidekicks” do to help them? (I ask these questions as someone who’s not that familiar with the rationalist community.)
A hero means roughly what you’d expect—someone who takes personal responsibility for solving world problems. Kind of like an effective altruist. A sidekick doesn’t have any specific jargon meaning.
For a bit more flavour, here’s a description from hpmor:
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.
What I understand about rationality ‘heroes’ is limited to what I’ve gleaned from Miranda’s post, but to me it seems like earning to give fits much more naturally into a sidekick category than into a hero category.
I see the hero as the one pushing innovative new strategies for world-changing (eg. starting a business in that area, like Givewell—specifics subject to what changes the hero wants to make), while the sidekicks are the ones that help out by being employed in that business (in a non-directing role) or donating to it or providing moral support etc. - they help what’s already been created do better, and thus have to choose from people/causes that already exist rather than creating their own.
What would examples of new such strategies and businesses be?