I’m asking this because your proposals seem less like “something that people will disagree about” and more like “something that anyone can tag”
P.S
If I’d work on the forum myself, I’d probably want to ask you further questions, like “ok, let’s say all of this was ready, what posts would you personally search for now?”
Tags can work for Longtermism detail, although the nuance due to the extent of each longtermism aspect would be lost (plus, there would be five tags just for one image).
Generally, tags are not scales, so, for example, if you want to know to what extent this is entertaining or serious, you can only have the binary tag Humor (for very humorous posts).
You could have tags for effects timeline that are discrete steps (e. g. within 100, 1000, 10000, … years) but to combine these with the effects certainty in each of these time periods you would need some tag relationship function, which could be visually confusing so just graphing seems better to me.
There are already tags that relate to risk and wellness, such as Global catastrophic risk and Global health and wellbeing, but (especially the former one) these can be somewhat generously applied (if the post somewhat relates, why not to tag it by this popular tag, for example) and do not depict the ethical theory that the post is implying (just one picture and you know to what extent this is e. g. negative prioritarianism or a system where high wellbeing of a few is prioritized notwithstanding others’ suffering). Thus, ‘red’ tags, such as ‘Repugnant Conclusion,’ ‘Sadistic Conclusion,’ etc could be applied. But again, the nuance.
Stimulated reasoning is for the readers to think about the way they and others reason. Tags could be used but having to graph this in 5D can motivate deeper meta-analysis regarding one’s cognition, which can be generally useful for coming up with unbiased ideas and understanding others’ ways of thinking.
Breadth and depth is really better if it is a scale, otherwise you have: is it broad? Is it deep? Well, this is a bit of an oversimplification—you could have a specific tag for posts which are details, posts which are just broad overviews, posts which introduce examples and use deductive reasoning, posts which are broad overviews but motivate inductive reasoning based on logic, posts which are somewhat detailed, posts which are info hazards and are too detailed (maybe you could control for a threshold value for posts tagged both risk and with a score above a certain level of detail, … just one use). Then, you would have the issue that certain tags are to categorize the post within a certain aspect (such as breadth and depth) and other tags denote a different category (such as reasoning type) but they all look the same, so it is more time consuming to scan and make a mental picture. If you want to keep readers rather confused about what this is all about, then this is somewhat definitive argument against infographics. But, I think that easy orientation to enable users to see what they can best like is beneficial.
The problem and solution system is also too many tags but here the scale can be perhaps the least needed. Readers looking for problems could just go find them. Readers looking for, for instance, if someone has already connected some solutions on a specific topic could just jump by the tag.
Who recommends it can probably be the one to keep from all this. For example, if there are people who like to advance public facing narratives in an attention-captivating manner that limits critical thinking and may motivate impulsive action (this is also maybe why the reasoning type is implemented, you can see which posts motivate impulsive reasoning) and recommend a post, then a person who is also maybe just coming across EA, perhaps due to seeking effective climate actions, may enjoy it but it will be identified for those who are not so much interested in public facing narratives and impulsive reasoning and may rather prefer maybe connecting solutions. The cause area and innovative/traditional interest/expertise upvoting can be quite informative in knowing who would best benefit from engagement.
I am not sure what posts I would search for, haha, I sound like GPT-3, but perhaps as reasoned in the above paragraph, since I am a more engaged community member, I would search posts that
have various effects timelines, since I like to keep my mind open regarding thinking about innovative longtermist solutions (I am now thinking just build sound altruistic institutions, they will perpetuate and permeate but there may be other options out there) - so, maybe higher certainty in longer timelines
risk and wellness—does not really matter, both are important—I would be looking at posts that are more highly scored in both, because I think that preventing risk without securing wellness is quite risky, unless the solution has to be prioritized—there are so many risks so one may be interested in systemic change that demotivates people to think about actions that could be risky to others and motivates them to share wellbeing, including by de-risking actions—In addition to look for posts that score highly in both to see complementary solutions to what I am thinking, I would just review this for posts I like to debias myself
types of reasoning—if there is a new author scoring high on impulsive I would check if they are a threat to the community epistemics and if so then see what I can do, otherwise I could be interested in emotional deductive (regardless of score in other categories) because these posts are written in a way that empathizes with others and makes a conclusion—new perspectives
breadth and depth I would not look for posts which are broad but not deep unless they score high in the problem/solution system
I would not look at entertaining posts
problem/solution system: big spirals and/or the two brown bars long
longtermism detail: depending on other posts, but wellbeing of all sentience can be relatively limited with respect to e. g. agency of some humans, so although all categories are needed for long-term prosperity, I would look at this fourth category for marginal focus value (but I have not seen all the scores so may be biased) and Other objectives since I would be curious what other objectives are available and whether some can be prioritized to other categories
If I would be actually reading or scoring posts, I would have a mental model full of conditionalities that is continuously updated and would think that I will read certain content but then read based on other factors, such as recommendations, highlights, or coincidence. So, I would have to set up a filter to keep some focus.
Would more detailed tags help you with this?
I’m asking this because your proposals seem less like “something that people will disagree about” and more like “something that anyone can tag”
P.S
If I’d work on the forum myself, I’d probably want to ask you further questions, like “ok, let’s say all of this was ready, what posts would you personally search for now?”
Tags can work for Longtermism detail, although the nuance due to the extent of each longtermism aspect would be lost (plus, there would be five tags just for one image).
Generally, tags are not scales, so, for example, if you want to know to what extent this is entertaining or serious, you can only have the binary tag Humor (for very humorous posts).
You could have tags for effects timeline that are discrete steps (e. g. within 100, 1000, 10000, … years) but to combine these with the effects certainty in each of these time periods you would need some tag relationship function, which could be visually confusing so just graphing seems better to me.
There are already tags that relate to risk and wellness, such as Global catastrophic risk and Global health and wellbeing, but (especially the former one) these can be somewhat generously applied (if the post somewhat relates, why not to tag it by this popular tag, for example) and do not depict the ethical theory that the post is implying (just one picture and you know to what extent this is e. g. negative prioritarianism or a system where high wellbeing of a few is prioritized notwithstanding others’ suffering). Thus, ‘red’ tags, such as ‘Repugnant Conclusion,’ ‘Sadistic Conclusion,’ etc could be applied. But again, the nuance.
Stimulated reasoning is for the readers to think about the way they and others reason. Tags could be used but having to graph this in 5D can motivate deeper meta-analysis regarding one’s cognition, which can be generally useful for coming up with unbiased ideas and understanding others’ ways of thinking.
Breadth and depth is really better if it is a scale, otherwise you have: is it broad? Is it deep? Well, this is a bit of an oversimplification—you could have a specific tag for posts which are details, posts which are just broad overviews, posts which introduce examples and use deductive reasoning, posts which are broad overviews but motivate inductive reasoning based on logic, posts which are somewhat detailed, posts which are info hazards and are too detailed (maybe you could control for a threshold value for posts tagged both risk and with a score above a certain level of detail, … just one use). Then, you would have the issue that certain tags are to categorize the post within a certain aspect (such as breadth and depth) and other tags denote a different category (such as reasoning type) but they all look the same, so it is more time consuming to scan and make a mental picture. If you want to keep readers rather confused about what this is all about, then this is somewhat definitive argument against infographics. But, I think that easy orientation to enable users to see what they can best like is beneficial.
The problem and solution system is also too many tags but here the scale can be perhaps the least needed. Readers looking for problems could just go find them. Readers looking for, for instance, if someone has already connected some solutions on a specific topic could just jump by the tag.
Who recommends it can probably be the one to keep from all this. For example, if there are people who like to advance public facing narratives in an attention-captivating manner that limits critical thinking and may motivate impulsive action (this is also maybe why the reasoning type is implemented, you can see which posts motivate impulsive reasoning) and recommend a post, then a person who is also maybe just coming across EA, perhaps due to seeking effective climate actions, may enjoy it but it will be identified for those who are not so much interested in public facing narratives and impulsive reasoning and may rather prefer maybe connecting solutions. The cause area and innovative/traditional interest/expertise upvoting can be quite informative in knowing who would best benefit from engagement.
I am not sure what posts I would search for, haha, I sound like GPT-3, but perhaps as reasoned in the above paragraph, since I am a more engaged community member, I would search posts that
have various effects timelines, since I like to keep my mind open regarding thinking about innovative longtermist solutions (I am now thinking just build sound altruistic institutions, they will perpetuate and permeate but there may be other options out there) - so, maybe higher certainty in longer timelines
risk and wellness—does not really matter, both are important—I would be looking at posts that are more highly scored in both, because I think that preventing risk without securing wellness is quite risky, unless the solution has to be prioritized—there are so many risks so one may be interested in systemic change that demotivates people to think about actions that could be risky to others and motivates them to share wellbeing, including by de-risking actions—In addition to look for posts that score highly in both to see complementary solutions to what I am thinking, I would just review this for posts I like to debias myself
types of reasoning—if there is a new author scoring high on impulsive I would check if they are a threat to the community epistemics and if so then see what I can do, otherwise I could be interested in emotional deductive (regardless of score in other categories) because these posts are written in a way that empathizes with others and makes a conclusion—new perspectives
breadth and depth I would not look for posts which are broad but not deep unless they score high in the problem/solution system
I would not look at entertaining posts
problem/solution system: big spirals and/or the two brown bars long
longtermism detail: depending on other posts, but wellbeing of all sentience can be relatively limited with respect to e. g. agency of some humans, so although all categories are needed for long-term prosperity, I would look at this fourth category for marginal focus value (but I have not seen all the scores so may be biased) and Other objectives since I would be curious what other objectives are available and whether some can be prioritized to other categories
If I would be actually reading or scoring posts, I would have a mental model full of conditionalities that is continuously updated and would think that I will read certain content but then read based on other factors, such as recommendations, highlights, or coincidence. So, I would have to set up a filter to keep some focus.
Thank you for the questions.