Post summary (feel free to suggest edits!): Differing values creates risks of uncooperative behavior within the EA community, such as failing to update on good arguments because they come from the “other side”, failing to achieve common moral aims (eg. avoiding worst case outcomes), failing to compromise, or committing harmful acts out of spite / tribalism.
The author suggests mitigating these risks by assuming good intent, looking for positive-sum compromises, actively noticing and reducing our tendency to promote / like our ingroup more, and validating that the situation is challenging and it’s normal to feel some tension.
(If you’d like to see more summaries of top EA and LW forum posts, check out the Weekly Summaries series.)
Post summary (feel free to suggest edits!):
Differing values creates risks of uncooperative behavior within the EA community, such as failing to update on good arguments because they come from the “other side”, failing to achieve common moral aims (eg. avoiding worst case outcomes), failing to compromise, or committing harmful acts out of spite / tribalism.
The author suggests mitigating these risks by assuming good intent, looking for positive-sum compromises, actively noticing and reducing our tendency to promote / like our ingroup more, and validating that the situation is challenging and it’s normal to feel some tension.
(If you’d like to see more summaries of top EA and LW forum posts, check out the Weekly Summaries series.)