Thanks for responding David, and again I think that the survey work youâve done is great :) We have many points of agreement:
Agreed that you basically note my points in the previous works (both in footnotes and in the main text)
Agreed that itâs always a hard tradeoff when compressing detailed research findings into digestible summaries of researchâI know from professional experience how hard that is!
Agreed that there is some structure which your previous factor analysis and general community discussions picked up on, which is worth highlighting and examining
I still think that the terminology is somewhat misguided. Perhaps the key part I disagree is that âReferring to these clusters of causes and ideas in terms of âlongtermismâ and âneartermismâ is established terminologyââeven if it has been established I want to push back and un-establish because I think itâs more unhelpful and even harmful for community discussion and progress. Iâm not sure what terms are better, though some alternatives Iâve seen have been:[1]
I guess, to state my point as clearly as possible, I donât think the current cluster names âcarve nature at its jointsâ, and that the potential confusion/âambiguity in use could lead to negative perceptions that arenât accurate became entrenched
Thanks JWS, it certainly sounds like we agree more than we disagree.
even if it has been established I want to push back and un-establish
Thatâs definitely fair!
For what itâs worth I think that the explanation for differences in support for these two different clusters of causes is more epistemic and than it is to do with attitudes towards the longterm or near term per se.[1] Ideally, Iâd like the terms we use to not (be seen to) refer to the explanation for supporting the causes at all, since I think the reasons are heterogeneous.
In any case, we definitely agree that none of these terms are perfect, and I suspect no terms are going to be completely satisfactory, but Iâm open to continued discussion about what better terms would be.
Although, in terms of predicting âLT minus NTâ cause prioritisation from our cause-related idea items, the âlong term futureâ item and âlow probability, high impactâ items were about equally predictive.
Interestingly, this also holds true in unpublished work we have looking at the general public, for whom objections that influencing the far future is impractical or impossible are more consequential than their lack of concern for future generations.
Thanks for responding David, and again I think that the survey work youâve done is great :) We have many points of agreement:
Agreed that you basically note my points in the previous works (both in footnotes and in the main text)
Agreed that itâs always a hard tradeoff when compressing detailed research findings into digestible summaries of researchâI know from professional experience how hard that is!
Agreed that there is some structure which your previous factor analysis and general community discussions picked up on, which is worth highlighting and examining
I still think that the terminology is somewhat misguided. Perhaps the key part I disagree is that âReferring to these clusters of causes and ideas in terms of âlongtermismâ and âneartermismâ is established terminologyââeven if it has been established I want to push back and un-establish because I think itâs more unhelpful and even harmful for community discussion and progress. Iâm not sure what terms are better, though some alternatives Iâve seen have been:[1]
Richard Chappellâs âPure suffering reduction vs Reliable global capacity growth vs High-impact long-shotsâ
Laura Duffyâs âEmpirical EA vs Reason-driven EAâ
Ryan Briggsâs âBed-nets vs Light-coneâ
I guess, to state my point as clearly as possible, I donât think the current cluster names âcarve nature at its jointsâ, and that the potential confusion/âambiguity in use could lead to negative perceptions that arenât accurate became entrenched
Though I donât think any of them are perfect distillations
Thanks JWS, it certainly sounds like we agree more than we disagree.
Thatâs definitely fair!
For what itâs worth I think that the explanation for differences in support for these two different clusters of causes is more epistemic and than it is to do with attitudes towards the longterm or near term per se.[1] Ideally, Iâd like the terms we use to not (be seen to) refer to the explanation for supporting the causes at all, since I think the reasons are heterogeneous.
In any case, we definitely agree that none of these terms are perfect, and I suspect no terms are going to be completely satisfactory, but Iâm open to continued discussion about what better terms would be.
Although, in terms of predicting âLT minus NTâ cause prioritisation from our cause-related idea items, the âlong term futureâ item and âlow probability, high impactâ items were about equally predictive.
Interestingly, this also holds true in unpublished work we have looking at the general public, for whom objections that influencing the far future is impractical or impossible are more consequential than their lack of concern for future generations.