The wording is really bad, and it seems like the beliefs are really, really bad (“species”).
RE: “Shoot everyone else”. It’s plausible that it’s objectively optimal for these tribes to be hostile as they are. Many educated people might come to that conclusion, based on readings of history.
“Species” refers to homo sapiens sapiens. Even if you look at history, for example in the Middle Ages in Europe (The Better Angels of Our Nature), you could possibly be less interested in allowing humans to develop further, extrapolating from the trends at that time. It could have been a chance that industry allowed for specialization and currently we are at the position of protecting all ours and others’ wellbeing. It could have been that actually torture instruments undergo significant development, monarchs fight for territory, and overtake each other in threatening people with suffering to yield and work on land.
It would have been optimal for the monarch to also be relatively hostile. However, their benevolence would have been exclusive to a selected few (or themselves). I suggest that the moral circles of the future civilization are expanded. Since there would be no external accountability in the event of a disaster, the protected group should have this principle internalized. It may be that bonobos would also be hostile to others if needed but it can also be likely that if bonobos and humans develop to the same technological level, humans will be more exclusive in advancing wellbeing to other individuals and species. Since natural evolution is not as time constrained, it may be better to protect bonobos than human tribes with little to no contact with other humans to safeguard a positive development of future civilization.
Ok, I saw images and read stories, which may be selected to fit the texts where they are introduced and be captured by an unfamiliar device relatively near the persons, in which these humans aimed arrows at the camera or threw spears at helicopters with emergency aid. It is also possible that these humans hunt and use devices which can be thrown or released by a spring to cover relatively longer distances fast.
Some articles specify that at least some of these groups’ members had negative experiences with some other humans and so the groups chose to discontinue interacting. So, it may be that some ancestors in the human groups have been traumatized and the emotional perception of others is carried forward. In general, when no unfamiliar devices are causing them fear or when they do not need to hunt or otherwise protect themselves, they can be supporting each other and other species in wellbeing.
However, notwithstanding any possible rationale for any hostility in some cases, I guess that the intuition/norm leaders of these groups would not aim for scaling up wellbeing across moral circles as much as possible.
Similarly, leaders of other homo sapiens sapiens groups, who could have gained dominance by the use of force, the threat of such, or limited support when they could have increased others’ wellbeing, may be unlikely to extend wellbeing prioritizing norms across the sentience landscape.
Thus, ‘shoot everyone else’ can be understood as accurate, if one focuses on its normative meaning. It means rather than emotionally focusing on others in order to increase their own wellbeing and support the wellbeing of the other, if that is what the other prefers, or support them otherwise if this is generally good, these people seek to reduce others’ pursuit and development of their objectives, in order to reduce the need of engaging with them, including by the use of force or threat of such. Shooting is one way to achieve this objective.
I do dumber stuff all the time than this, but I want you to know that this reads like a shallow rationalization or even reiteration of the original sentiment.
The comment is using what I call “EA rhetoric” which has sort of evolved on the forum over the years, where posts and comments are padded out with words and other devices. To the degree this is intended to evasive, this is further bad as it harms trust. These devices are perfectly visible to outsiders.
I think you care and I’m not sure you see this and it seems good to know as I think other people will have similar takes.
The comment is using what I call “EA rhetoric” which has sort of evolved on the forum over the years, where posts and comments are padded out with words and other devices. To the degree this is intended to evasive, this is further bad as it harms trust. These devices are perfectly visible to outsiders.
I agree that this has evolved on the forum over the years and it is driving me insane. Seems like a total race to the bottom to appear as the most thorough thinker. You’re also right to point out that it is completely visible to outsiders.
shallow rationalization or even reiteration of the original sentiment
It is an explanation and an elaboration that seeks to explain the sentiment, so that you and other readers can better understand the intuitive/emotional meaning, which is that protecting abusive and neglectful human societies may be suboptimal.
“EA rhetoric” which has sort of evolved on the forum over the years, where posts and comments are padded out with words and other devices.
Notwithstanding that Forum users can use rhetorical devices to attract attention, limit readers’ critical thinking and response and motivate them to an impulsive action, or gain credibility by using specific expressions, readers can always critically think, react, and focus on the content rather than form.
To the degree this is intended to evasive, this is further bad as it harms trust. These devices are perfectly visible to outsiders.
If users point out any of these devices, the authors may reduce or eliminate their usage. Open critique and positive responses should gain trust. Trust would be undermined by ignorance. Even though these devices are visible, they may not always be discerned or concretely pointed out by users.
I think you care and I’m not sure you see this and it seems good to know as I think other people will have similar takes.
For example, I can point out an appeal to emotion and possibly a false implication without a concrete request. You are implying that if I do not respond, I do not care about a specific topic, such as protecting the future or the populations of groups called uncontacted peoples.
Further, you are implying your ‘vulnerability’ in expressing that you are uncertain whether I see this and rhetorically empowering me to a free action in this exchange, which can motivate me to a response through my willingness to ‘assure’ the vulnerable.
‘It seems good to know’ can be understood as an (abstract) threat of being considered uninformed (and thus shameful or worthy of exclusion) if I do not acknowledge your comment, while agreeing may seem to be the solution to avert being considered as such.
‘I think other people will have similar takes’ appeals to the thread to exclusion, which can further motivate me to respond, since intuitively, animals could fear exclusion.
So, I ask you to refrain from appealing to emotion in your comments. Before you post a comment, analyze whether it can be interpreted as seeking to gain attention by motivating the reader’s emotions. If so, change it so that the same suggestion is conveyed without an appeal to emotions. These suggestions can be better perceived and (perhaps—although ideally only content would be always considered) met with positive implementation of your suggestions by readers.
Further, I ask you to have concrete/more elaborated complaints and/or suggestions, which can be useful to the Forum users. For example, which wording, specifically is bad, is it just the word “species” or does it relate to another idea that I suggested, or are you referring to the expression “shoot everyone else,” and if so, are you mostly concerned about the generalization ‘everyone’ or the assumption ‘shoot.’
What beliefs are bad and bad from what perspective? Do you think that I am not focusing on understanding the realities of these individuals and instead making assumptions based on objectification, or is it that my moral values are incorrect because I do not prioritize humans over bonobos, or are you commenting on anything else that you are not explicitly stating?
By offering a reasoning behind your specific complaint, you could perhaps point me out to an alternative thinking about the problem, or a resource that I could review. Then, I could alter or change my thinking, present a counterargument, or share another resource. Suggesting an alternative solution can have similar thought/solution development effect.
I don’t think I agree with you on the above. I see myself as trying to help. In my opinion, the consequences of some of the writing here seems pretty serious.
Whether right or wrong, I’m going to disengage now.
The wording is really bad, and it seems like the beliefs are really, really bad (“species”).
RE: “Shoot everyone else”. It’s plausible that it’s objectively optimal for these tribes to be hostile as they are. Many educated people might come to that conclusion, based on readings of history.
No one I know in EA believes or talks like this.
“Species” refers to homo sapiens sapiens. Even if you look at history, for example in the Middle Ages in Europe (The Better Angels of Our Nature), you could possibly be less interested in allowing humans to develop further, extrapolating from the trends at that time. It could have been a chance that industry allowed for specialization and currently we are at the position of protecting all ours and others’ wellbeing. It could have been that actually torture instruments undergo significant development, monarchs fight for territory, and overtake each other in threatening people with suffering to yield and work on land.
It would have been optimal for the monarch to also be relatively hostile. However, their benevolence would have been exclusive to a selected few (or themselves). I suggest that the moral circles of the future civilization are expanded. Since there would be no external accountability in the event of a disaster, the protected group should have this principle internalized. It may be that bonobos would also be hostile to others if needed but it can also be likely that if bonobos and humans develop to the same technological level, humans will be more exclusive in advancing wellbeing to other individuals and species. Since natural evolution is not as time constrained, it may be better to protect bonobos than human tribes with little to no contact with other humans to safeguard a positive development of future civilization.
Ok, I saw images and read stories, which may be selected to fit the texts where they are introduced and be captured by an unfamiliar device relatively near the persons, in which these humans aimed arrows at the camera or threw spears at helicopters with emergency aid. It is also possible that these humans hunt and use devices which can be thrown or released by a spring to cover relatively longer distances fast.
Some articles specify that at least some of these groups’ members had negative experiences with some other humans and so the groups chose to discontinue interacting. So, it may be that some ancestors in the human groups have been traumatized and the emotional perception of others is carried forward. In general, when no unfamiliar devices are causing them fear or when they do not need to hunt or otherwise protect themselves, they can be supporting each other and other species in wellbeing.
However, notwithstanding any possible rationale for any hostility in some cases, I guess that the intuition/norm leaders of these groups would not aim for scaling up wellbeing across moral circles as much as possible.
Similarly, leaders of other homo sapiens sapiens groups, who could have gained dominance by the use of force, the threat of such, or limited support when they could have increased others’ wellbeing, may be unlikely to extend wellbeing prioritizing norms across the sentience landscape.
Thus, ‘shoot everyone else’ can be understood as accurate, if one focuses on its normative meaning. It means rather than emotionally focusing on others in order to increase their own wellbeing and support the wellbeing of the other, if that is what the other prefers, or support them otherwise if this is generally good, these people seek to reduce others’ pursuit and development of their objectives, in order to reduce the need of engaging with them, including by the use of force or threat of such. Shooting is one way to achieve this objective.
I do dumber stuff all the time than this, but I want you to know that this reads like a shallow rationalization or even reiteration of the original sentiment.
The comment is using what I call “EA rhetoric” which has sort of evolved on the forum over the years, where posts and comments are padded out with words and other devices. To the degree this is intended to evasive, this is further bad as it harms trust. These devices are perfectly visible to outsiders.
I think you care and I’m not sure you see this and it seems good to know as I think other people will have similar takes.
I agree that this has evolved on the forum over the years and it is driving me insane. Seems like a total race to the bottom to appear as the most thorough thinker. You’re also right to point out that it is completely visible to outsiders.
It is an explanation and an elaboration that seeks to explain the sentiment, so that you and other readers can better understand the intuitive/emotional meaning, which is that protecting abusive and neglectful human societies may be suboptimal.
Notwithstanding that Forum users can use rhetorical devices to attract attention, limit readers’ critical thinking and response and motivate them to an impulsive action, or gain credibility by using specific expressions, readers can always critically think, react, and focus on the content rather than form.
If users point out any of these devices, the authors may reduce or eliminate their usage. Open critique and positive responses should gain trust. Trust would be undermined by ignorance. Even though these devices are visible, they may not always be discerned or concretely pointed out by users.
For example, I can point out an appeal to emotion and possibly a false implication without a concrete request. You are implying that if I do not respond, I do not care about a specific topic, such as protecting the future or the populations of groups called uncontacted peoples.
Further, you are implying your ‘vulnerability’ in expressing that you are uncertain whether I see this and rhetorically empowering me to a free action in this exchange, which can motivate me to a response through my willingness to ‘assure’ the vulnerable.
‘It seems good to know’ can be understood as an (abstract) threat of being considered uninformed (and thus shameful or worthy of exclusion) if I do not acknowledge your comment, while agreeing may seem to be the solution to avert being considered as such.
‘I think other people will have similar takes’ appeals to the thread to exclusion, which can further motivate me to respond, since intuitively, animals could fear exclusion.
So, I ask you to refrain from appealing to emotion in your comments. Before you post a comment, analyze whether it can be interpreted as seeking to gain attention by motivating the reader’s emotions. If so, change it so that the same suggestion is conveyed without an appeal to emotions. These suggestions can be better perceived and (perhaps—although ideally only content would be always considered) met with positive implementation of your suggestions by readers.
Further, I ask you to have concrete/more elaborated complaints and/or suggestions, which can be useful to the Forum users. For example, which wording, specifically is bad, is it just the word “species” or does it relate to another idea that I suggested, or are you referring to the expression “shoot everyone else,” and if so, are you mostly concerned about the generalization ‘everyone’ or the assumption ‘shoot.’
What beliefs are bad and bad from what perspective? Do you think that I am not focusing on understanding the realities of these individuals and instead making assumptions based on objectification, or is it that my moral values are incorrect because I do not prioritize humans over bonobos, or are you commenting on anything else that you are not explicitly stating?
By offering a reasoning behind your specific complaint, you could perhaps point me out to an alternative thinking about the problem, or a resource that I could review. Then, I could alter or change my thinking, present a counterargument, or share another resource. Suggesting an alternative solution can have similar thought/solution development effect.
I don’t think I agree with you on the above. I see myself as trying to help. In my opinion, the consequences of some of the writing here seems pretty serious.
Whether right or wrong, I’m going to disengage now.