Yeah, I agree that my examples of steering sometimes are closely related to other terms in Holden’s framework, particularly equity – indeed I have a comment about that buried deep in a footnote.
One reason I think this happens is because I think a super important concept for steering is the idea of moral uncertainty, and taking moral uncertainty seriously can imply putting a greater weight on equity than you otherwise might.
I guess another reason is that I tend to assume that effective steering is, as an empirical matter, more likely to be achieved if you incorporate a wide range of voices and perspectives. And this does in practice end up being similar to efforts to “amplify the voices and advance the interests of historically marginalized groups” that Holden puts under the category of equity. But yeah, like you say, it can be hard to differentiate whether people advocate for equity and diversity of perspectives for instrumental or intrinsic reasons (I’m keen on both).
I also think your last remark is a fair critique of my post – perhaps I did bring in some more controversial (though, to me, compelling!) perspectives under the less controversial heading of steering.
A very similar critique I’ve heard from two others is something like: “Is your argument purely that there isn’t enough steering going on, or is it also that you disagree with the current direction of steering?” And I think, to be fair, that it’s also partly the latter for me, at least on some very specific domains.
But one response to that is that, yes, I disagree with some of the current steering – but a necessary condition for changing direction is that people talk/care/focus more on steering, so I’m going to make the case for that first.
Hey Linch, thanks for this thoughtful comment!
Yeah, I agree that my examples of steering sometimes are closely related to other terms in Holden’s framework, particularly equity – indeed I have a comment about that buried deep in a footnote.
One reason I think this happens is because I think a super important concept for steering is the idea of moral uncertainty, and taking moral uncertainty seriously can imply putting a greater weight on equity than you otherwise might.
I guess another reason is that I tend to assume that effective steering is, as an empirical matter, more likely to be achieved if you incorporate a wide range of voices and perspectives. And this does in practice end up being similar to efforts to “amplify the voices and advance the interests of historically marginalized groups” that Holden puts under the category of equity. But yeah, like you say, it can be hard to differentiate whether people advocate for equity and diversity of perspectives for instrumental or intrinsic reasons (I’m keen on both).
I also think your last remark is a fair critique of my post – perhaps I did bring in some more controversial (though, to me, compelling!) perspectives under the less controversial heading of steering.
A very similar critique I’ve heard from two others is something like: “Is your argument purely that there isn’t enough steering going on, or is it also that you disagree with the current direction of steering?” And I think, to be fair, that it’s also partly the latter for me, at least on some very specific domains.
But one response to that is that, yes, I disagree with some of the current steering – but a necessary condition for changing direction is that people talk/care/focus more on steering, so I’m going to make the case for that first.
Thanks again for your comment!