Norms = social expectations = psychological pressure. If you donāt want any social pressure to take the 10% pledge (even among EAs), what youāre saying is that you donāt want it to be a norm.
Now, I donāt think the pressure should be too intense or anything: some may well have good reasons for not taking the pledge. The pressure/āencouragement from a username icon is pretty tame, as far as social pressures go. (Nobody is proposing a āwalk of shameā where we all throw rotten fruit and denounce the non-pledgers in our midst!) But I think the optimal level of social pressure/ānorminess is non-zero, because I expect that most EAs on the margins would do better to take the pledge (that belief is precisely why I do want it to become more of a normāif I already trusted that the social environment was well-calibrated for optimal decisions here, we wouldnāt need to change social norms).
So thatās why I think itās good, on the Forum and elsewhere, to use the diamond to promote the 10% pledge.
To be clear:
(1) I donāt think the audience ābeing familiarā with the pledge undercuts the reasons to want it to be more of a norm among EAs (and others).
(2) The possibility that something āmight not be the right decisionā for some people does not show that it shouldnāt be a norm. You need to compare the risks of over-pledging (in the presence of a norm) to the risks of under-pledging (in the absence of a norm). I think we should be more worried about the latter. But if someone wants to make the comparative argument that the former is the greater risk, that would be interesting to hear!
Norms = social expectations = psychological pressure. If you donāt want any social pressure to take the 10% pledge (even among EAs), what youāre saying is that you donāt want it to be a norm.
Now, I donāt think the pressure should be too intense or anything: some may well have good reasons for not taking the pledge. The pressure/āencouragement from a username icon is pretty tame, as far as social pressures go. (Nobody is proposing a āwalk of shameā where we all throw rotten fruit and denounce the non-pledgers in our midst!) But I think the optimal level of social pressure/ānorminess is non-zero, because I expect that most EAs on the margins would do better to take the pledge (that belief is precisely why I do want it to become more of a normāif I already trusted that the social environment was well-calibrated for optimal decisions here, we wouldnāt need to change social norms).
So thatās why I think itās good, on the Forum and elsewhere, to use the diamond to promote the 10% pledge.
To be clear:
(1) I donāt think the audience ābeing familiarā with the pledge undercuts the reasons to want it to be more of a norm among EAs (and others).
(2) The possibility that something āmight not be the right decisionā for some people does not show that it shouldnāt be a norm. You need to compare the risks of over-pledging (in the presence of a norm) to the risks of under-pledging (in the absence of a norm). I think we should be more worried about the latter. But if someone wants to make the comparative argument that the former is the greater risk, that would be interesting to hear!