I think you make some good points. This post, plus Ben Toddâs recent post, has updated me towards thinking that:
we should often use the term âdrop out rateâ instead
when using the term âvalue driftâ, we should ensure weâve made it at least decently clear what we mean
Perhaps by saying things like âvalue drift away from EAâ, or ânegative value driftâ, or just having a paragraph/âfootnote outlining what we are vs arenât counting
That said, I do think most writing Iâve seen on value drift has explicitly stated that one could separately ask how to precisely define this phenomena and how good vs bad it is, but that the post at hand will instead just provide empirical info on value drift. (The main posts that come to mind which I think did that are Toddâs post and this post.) And that seems reasonable to me.
Iâll provide some other minor pushbacks in separate comments. Most donât detract much from the key thrust of what youâre saying.
I think ânegative value driftâ is still too idiosyncratic; it doesnât say negative for whom. For the value holder, any value drift generally has negative consequences.
I (also) think itâs a step in the right direction to explicitly state that a post isnât trying to define value drift, but just provide empirical info. Hopefully my post will have provided that definition, and people will now be able to build on this.
I think ânegative value driftâ is still too idiosyncratic; it doesnât say negative for whom.
I feel comfortable saying things like âpositive impactâ, ânegative impactâ, âimprove the worldâ, or simply âgoodâ and âbadâ without specifying which value system thatâs in relation to. (And people often speak in that way outside of EA as well.) I think that, when one doesnât specify that, itâs safe to assume one means something like âfrom my moral perspectiveâ, or âfrom the perspective of what Iâd guess my morals would be if I knew more and reflected furtherâ, or âfrom the perspective of my best guess at whatâs morally trueâ.
One could argue that we should always specify what perspective weâre defining positive/ânegative/âgood/âbad in relation to. But I think that would slow us down unnecessarily compared to just sometimes specifying that. And I donât see a strong reason to do that for value drift if we donât do it for other things.
Itâs true that value drift will tend to be negative from the naive perspective of the values that had previously been held, and positive from the naive perspective of the values that are now held. (I say ânaive perspectiveâ because the value drift could be in a direction that the prior value system wouldâve endorsed on reflection, or something like that.) But I donât think that prevents us from having our own views on whether the value drift was good or bad. Analogously, I think I can have views on whether a change in what someone donates to is good or bad, regardless of what that personâs aims for their donations are.
This seems reasonable to me. I do use the shortcut myself in various contexts. But I think using it on someone when you know itâs because they have different values is rude.
I use value drift to refer to fundamental values. If your surface level values change because you introspected more, I wouldnât call it a drift. Drift has a connotation of not being in control. Maybe I would rather call it value enlightenment.
I agree with this (though I think the connotations might be pretty weak). I think âvalue driftâ also has weakly negative connotations even aside from that.
I think that, if we want to introduce a new term to avoid negative connotations or connotations of not being in control, âvalue shiftâ or âvalue changeâ would be better than âvalue enlightenmentâ. âValue enlightenmentâ would have strong positive connotations and connotations of having found the truth, and itâs also less immediately obvious what it refers to. It seems to me that itâs obvious what âvalue shiftâ or âvalue changeâ mean, and that those terms are consistent with the change being positive, negative, neutral, or of unknown value.
I think you make some good points. This post, plus Ben Toddâs recent post, has updated me towards thinking that:
we should often use the term âdrop out rateâ instead
when using the term âvalue driftâ, we should ensure weâve made it at least decently clear what we mean
Perhaps by saying things like âvalue drift away from EAâ, or ânegative value driftâ, or just having a paragraph/âfootnote outlining what we are vs arenât counting
That said, I do think most writing Iâve seen on value drift has explicitly stated that one could separately ask how to precisely define this phenomena and how good vs bad it is, but that the post at hand will instead just provide empirical info on value drift. (The main posts that come to mind which I think did that are Toddâs post and this post.) And that seems reasonable to me.
Iâll provide some other minor pushbacks in separate comments. Most donât detract much from the key thrust of what youâre saying.
Thanks.
I think ânegative value driftâ is still too idiosyncratic; it doesnât say negative for whom. For the value holder, any value drift generally has negative consequences.
I (also) think itâs a step in the right direction to explicitly state that a post isnât trying to define value drift, but just provide empirical info. Hopefully my post will have provided that definition, and people will now be able to build on this.
I feel comfortable saying things like âpositive impactâ, ânegative impactâ, âimprove the worldâ, or simply âgoodâ and âbadâ without specifying which value system thatâs in relation to. (And people often speak in that way outside of EA as well.) I think that, when one doesnât specify that, itâs safe to assume one means something like âfrom my moral perspectiveâ, or âfrom the perspective of what Iâd guess my morals would be if I knew more and reflected furtherâ, or âfrom the perspective of my best guess at whatâs morally trueâ.
One could argue that we should always specify what perspective weâre defining positive/ânegative/âgood/âbad in relation to. But I think that would slow us down unnecessarily compared to just sometimes specifying that. And I donât see a strong reason to do that for value drift if we donât do it for other things.
Itâs true that value drift will tend to be negative from the naive perspective of the values that had previously been held, and positive from the naive perspective of the values that are now held. (I say ânaive perspectiveâ because the value drift could be in a direction that the prior value system wouldâve endorsed on reflection, or something like that.) But I donât think that prevents us from having our own views on whether the value drift was good or bad. Analogously, I think I can have views on whether a change in what someone donates to is good or bad, regardless of what that personâs aims for their donations are.
This seems reasonable to me. I do use the shortcut myself in various contexts. But I think using it on someone when you know itâs because they have different values is rude.
I use value drift to refer to fundamental values. If your surface level values change because you introspected more, I wouldnât call it a drift. Drift has a connotation of not being in control. Maybe I would rather call it value enlightenment.
I agree with this (though I think the connotations might be pretty weak). I think âvalue driftâ also has weakly negative connotations even aside from that.
I think that, if we want to introduce a new term to avoid negative connotations or connotations of not being in control, âvalue shiftâ or âvalue changeâ would be better than âvalue enlightenmentâ. âValue enlightenmentâ would have strong positive connotations and connotations of having found the truth, and itâs also less immediately obvious what it refers to. It seems to me that itâs obvious what âvalue shiftâ or âvalue changeâ mean, and that those terms are consistent with the change being positive, negative, neutral, or of unknown value.
yeah, âshiftâ or âchangeâ work better for neutral terms. other suggestion: âchange in reveal preferencesâ