Thank you very much for explaining this! I appreciate the analogy of the flood damage and tiny risks with great reward, that’s such an interesting point that I never considered. After researching that, it seems like what you’re describing is Pascal’s mugging, so I’ll read up on that also. Thanks again.
eaphilosophy
Karma: −8
Ah, thank you for your clarifications. Completely missed that you referenced the ledger in your original post, makes more sense now. Yes, I believe blockchain are unbiased, but frankly I don’t know enough about them to offer any input on that end.
For Less Wrong, I was referring to your Checks and Balances write-up, but the Implicit Bias Test would be good also as they do seem to like objective evidence. Take my advice with a grain of salt though, as I am a relatively new user to that site. However, you have little to lose and a fair amount to gain.
Did you mean to post something after “possible solutions to these issues: ” or is the paragraph that begins with “in regards to” your list of possible solutions? I assume the former because I also don’t see any mention of a ledger system.
With regards to a screening process, maybe something like the Harvard Implicit Bias test but for motivated reasoning? Asking people to quickly make decisions in situations susceptible to motivated reasoning? This test has been criticized but also has some research in support so it may be the best option.
This may also be a good question for the Less Wrong forum. If you post there, let me know and I’ll follow it because I am genuinely curious about this.
Thank you very much! The links were especially helpful—the doctor scenario in the first example is pretty much what I was talking about above, so their explanation of why it would be unwise to kill makes a lot of sense!
Thanks so much for the explanation! That makes a lot of sense, especially the third paragraph!
Interesting, so what are the bounds of the views of effective altruism with regards to maximizing impact? For example, if a eugenics program was found to be the #1 way to increase humanity’s chance of survival, then would that be an acceptable/ideal program to donate to from the lens of effective altruism?
Thanks, that article is interesting. Interesting that the views mainly fell into three groups of western, southern, and eastern.
I like this general idea and in theory it sounds great. In implementation, how would people who do not practice motivated reasoning be found and identified?
Is there a more objective way of determining whether motivated reasoning is behind a decision, to counteract the possibility that the “nonpartisan” people may not actually be as unaffected by motivated reasoning as we would hope?
Would requiring argument mapping for major decisions be a viable method to aid in this process?
None that I know of, but on the 80000hours.org effective altruism website they mention that one of the top 5 problems to solve is institutional decision making, and mention that they can put you in touch with people who are in those areas, but I’m not sure if that’s only for people in their mentorship program or any of their readers.
Please post (or pm) the link when you do!