I am a coach, self-exploration and wisdom enthusiast, extroverted
I follow: metacrisis (Schmachtenberger, Nate Hagens), integral altruism, Life Itself, Learning Planet, John Vervaeke’s work (modern wisdom), regen thinking, Game B, Liminal Web - & most things related in that field
It is possible to rationally prioritise between causes without engaging deeply on philosophical issues
It’s really hard. But though intuition gets a bad rap, we at base have a sense of which things suck and how much. It can be inaccurate, but maybe wisdom of the crowds can help us pool together to estimate fx suffering weight to give to cluster headaches or losing a child.
I have no idea how much this breaks down when things get more abstract i.e. longtermism/GCR.
This was awesome. Thanks man. For trying, and for sharing.
I loved the point about “visceral altruism”—it reminds me of Nasim Taleb (antifragile)‘s point about having ‘skin in the game’. That it’s actually very important for our decisions, especially when trying to do the right thing, that we stand to lose out if it fails. Well, Nasim, how about 1-up and putting our organs in the game!
I love this! I don’t have capacity right now but I’m very interested and want to stay in the loop—how can I best do that?
I think it’s a great idea!
I hear other commentors’ recommendations to focus on pledging, but I don’t think they need be counterfactually at odds. I could also see the fundraising lead to people getting more interested in effective giving—and as part of the fundraising you can also highlight both the 10% and trial pledge.
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge?c=header
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/trial-pledge
Additonally, there’s a post here outlining other low-cost projects people can run for impact:
More stuff about systems change! (complexity theory, phase shift, etc)
Being metacrisis aware and criticizing the whole “single cause area specialization” because many of the big problems are interweaving
I was not aware—thanks for this!
The utility still outweighs my non-existent privacy concerns but it’s good to know
Daniel Schmachtenbeger! He is more EA than most of us. Freakin leagues above most other intellectuals I’ve encountered anywhere
John Vervaeke, talking about solutions to AI through distributed cognition or modern approaches to wisdom (as an extension of rationality)
Thanks for putting this on the map for me! I hadn’t thought of it and now I feel pretty stoked. I imagine I’ll for sure do this sometime in the coming years..
Cool article. This is exactly the type of stuff we need—but you’re only scraping the surface. I /really/ recommend you look into the work of John Vervaeke. He’s a cognitive scientist who is all about wisdom cultivation (among many other things). He talks about wisdom as being a type of meta-rationality in which you know when to apply rationality and avoid being caught in the biases of over rationalizing everything—he speaks for how rationality, emotions, and intuition all have their strengths and shortcoming, and how to have them work together so you can become the best possible agent.
You can fx. start here:
You might be interested in the term “thrutopia”, which tries to achieve a similar thing and is gaining traction in semi-adjacent circles
On flourishing v. surviving:
I heard this story from Joe Hudson about a tennis player doing practice. She could hit the basket smth like 6⁄10 times. One day her coach put a coin instead and told her to hit the coin. She never hit the coin, but she would have hit the basket 9⁄10 times.
Where we aim can matter a lot for the outcomes we get, even without reaching “the goal” (same as it matters what questions you ask).
Joe’s point is also about what we get from ‘looking through’. He’s an exec coach in Silicon Valley and has done venture capital, and he says something similar about the people that manage to build billion$ companies.
It’s always about something more, not just making money or being big. (fx being the best, solving a problem, making a name for yourself, etc.)