Someone recently told me that I stood out compared to other writers in never seeming to treat anything as sacred. Which seemed to them awkward, odd, and implausible, as much as the opposite writers who seem to treat most all topics and issues as sacred. More plausibly, most people do treat some minority of things as especially sacred, and if they don’t reveal that in their writing, they are probably hiding it from others, and maybe also from themselves.
For me it's Goodness. And I believe God is Good, and evil is anti-God.Plus, if the "truth" is that there is no God, this lack of God means a lack of Goodness as well as a lack of evil.Which is better, "truth" or "goodness"? Goodness is gooder. By definition.Of course, not the "false goodness" which is so often proffered by those seeking self- benefit from those seeking ... truth, or goodness.And all who believe in God believe that their belief is True.
Find comparative advantages, if you're driven to do so.
a) There's a ton of them that don't involve being very intelligent, and instead involve finding one nifty hack or niche and exploiting that.
b) It's not zero-sum, it is possible for a large number of people to switch jobs, do new research, find more fulfilling pastimes and so on - such that everyone is more productive or satisified than they are today.
Out of curiosity: what suggestions do you have for people who don't have many or any comparative advantages over their peers? Blue-collar jobs and stay out of the way? Or is there anything a normal person can do to further important things?
This is a question which I often ask re e.g. 80000 hours type adverts exclaiming the importance of exceptionally gifted people doing important things.
That is, what about the rest of us - the vast majority?
When folks talk about desire they don't always associate requirements, like air, water, food and shelter prior to what you "want". In the sacred realm, for a self-organizing system, the self is not just an important concern - it's the entire universe. Something sacred you may not always think is there, but it is; your sacred sacrosanct self. There was hint in that direction when you considered criticism as something you possibly want to avoid.
What are the most important topics? Let us distinguish between global importance--On what topics is it most important that mankind as a whole take the right view?--and local importance--On what topics is it most important that *I, now* take the right view? I should probably put must of my efforts into the latter topics, thus enhancing my local, practicable knowledge.
> How can you better affirm this value? Its simple, but hard: Continually ask yourself what are the most important topics, what are the most promising ways to advance them, and what are your comparative advantages re such efforts.
This doesn't fit for me. I think this is more upholding a value like consistency or perseverance. This affirmation would work for a lot of values and I'd like to see the connection to truth-seeking more clearly. I expected something like: "To not flinch away from uncomfortable truth, accept them and follow them to their logical consequences."
Claiming truth-seeking in the usual sense would count as humble-brag but not the quite extreme version Robin Hanson is doing. Following ideas and concepts to their logical end - even if that end it uncomfortable and leads to push-back. And I think it is quite clear that Robin has made a lot of sacrifices e.g. of public acceptance to avoid sacrificing truth-seeking.
I have concrete suggestions. I linked to some of my articles explaining them. One is to *publish a policy for how you (and your proxies) will engage with critics, which explains some policies, offers some guarantees if certain conditions are met, etc.* Then provide transparency regarding how you follow it so the public can hold you accountable. I do this: https://www.elliottemple.co... I know I have a smaller following than you. You could make a more conservative/limited policy, which filters more aggressively than I do, and that would still put you way ahead of your peers.
Truth-seeking is one of the least controversial values to hold sacred. It's almost a humble brag. I'd be more impressed with your vulnerability display if you divulged some situation where you've been tempted to sacrifice truth-seeking at the altar of some other more controversial value, such as self-aggrandizement. Like maybe someone produced a really clever argument against some concept you spent many years developing, like prediction markets or grabby aliens or whatever, and you found yourself incapable of reconciling the discrepancy. But instead of signal-boosting that someone found a hole in your argument (in the name of truth-seeking!!), you suppress it or rationalize around it, or even try to keep it secret.
> truth-seeking among intellectuals on important topics
Suppose, hypothetically, that you're wrong about something important. What reasonable series of actions could someone take to correct your error?
Elaborating: Suppose a member of the public knows your error and would like to tell you. Further suppose that he cannot tell you in a paragraph or two. Your initial reaction will be that the idea does not sound promising. That's because it's complicated, it's counter-intuitive, it disagrees with multiple ideas you have, and it relies on several pieces of background knowledge you don't have. It's not the kind of easily-understandable, immediately-appealing idea that would go viral. Also, the critic doesn't have the right credentials, social status or social network to get your attention that way.
I understand that you have to protect your time, energy and attention. I understand that the large majority of people who'd like to teach you something are, in fact, wrong. But do you a written policy for how you protect your time and attention without blocking good ideas, which explains to a would-be critic what steps he needs to do to not be incorrectly ignored? Is such a policy publicly exposed to critical scrutiny? Do you have public transparency and accountability for how you handle this stuff? I believe not.
It's also important, for persuasion, that would-be critics who are wrong can get their criticisms addressed. Otherwise they'll keep thinking you're wrong with no way to learn better from you. Again you must protect your time, but there are things you can do. Books, blogs and FAQs help but aren't enough. A discussion forum with an organized community that takes responsibility for answering questions and criticisms would do more. That'd involve proxies who can answer some things in your place, and written escalation policies for when the proxies don't address issues adequately.
I think these methodological issues related to resource-efficient ways error correction can happen are crucial to truth seeking, and that you and many others are not working on them. I have been: https://criticalfallibilism...
"You run out of arguments" every system of thought and behaviour has premises, axioms, assumptions, values or similar that just are. It's the system as a whole that must be judged on how well it works, not each value or assumption.
If you value truth, then identifying that value clearly as a value is an important step. It's just being consistent - not a vulnerability.
For me it's Goodness. And I believe God is Good, and evil is anti-God.Plus, if the "truth" is that there is no God, this lack of God means a lack of Goodness as well as a lack of evil.Which is better, "truth" or "goodness"? Goodness is gooder. By definition.Of course, not the "false goodness" which is so often proffered by those seeking self- benefit from those seeking ... truth, or goodness.And all who believe in God believe that their belief is True.
Find comparative advantages, if you're driven to do so.
a) There's a ton of them that don't involve being very intelligent, and instead involve finding one nifty hack or niche and exploiting that.
b) It's not zero-sum, it is possible for a large number of people to switch jobs, do new research, find more fulfilling pastimes and so on - such that everyone is more productive or satisified than they are today.
Out of curiosity: what suggestions do you have for people who don't have many or any comparative advantages over their peers? Blue-collar jobs and stay out of the way? Or is there anything a normal person can do to further important things?
This is a question which I often ask re e.g. 80000 hours type adverts exclaiming the importance of exceptionally gifted people doing important things.
That is, what about the rest of us - the vast majority?
This would be a reasonable critique of someone who hadn't already publicly paid costs for following ideas too far multiple times.
When folks talk about desire they don't always associate requirements, like air, water, food and shelter prior to what you "want". In the sacred realm, for a self-organizing system, the self is not just an important concern - it's the entire universe. Something sacred you may not always think is there, but it is; your sacred sacrosanct self. There was hint in that direction when you considered criticism as something you possibly want to avoid.
What are the most important topics? Let us distinguish between global importance--On what topics is it most important that mankind as a whole take the right view?--and local importance--On what topics is it most important that *I, now* take the right view? I should probably put must of my efforts into the latter topics, thus enhancing my local, practicable knowledge.
You just passed the test
But you see the point here isn't to impress, it is to be honest about what I hold sacred.
Not flinching is good, but it is FAR from sufficient. That is my point, you have to look at ALL the things you can do to help.
> How can you better affirm this value? Its simple, but hard: Continually ask yourself what are the most important topics, what are the most promising ways to advance them, and what are your comparative advantages re such efforts.
This doesn't fit for me. I think this is more upholding a value like consistency or perseverance. This affirmation would work for a lot of values and I'd like to see the connection to truth-seeking more clearly. I expected something like: "To not flinch away from uncomfortable truth, accept them and follow them to their logical consequences."
Claiming truth-seeking in the usual sense would count as humble-brag but not the quite extreme version Robin Hanson is doing. Following ideas and concepts to their logical end - even if that end it uncomfortable and leads to push-back. And I think it is quite clear that Robin has made a lot of sacrifices e.g. of public acceptance to avoid sacrificing truth-seeking.
I have concrete suggestions. I linked to some of my articles explaining them. One is to *publish a policy for how you (and your proxies) will engage with critics, which explains some policies, offers some guarantees if certain conditions are met, etc.* Then provide transparency regarding how you follow it so the public can hold you accountable. I do this: https://www.elliottemple.co... I know I have a smaller following than you. You could make a more conservative/limited policy, which filters more aggressively than I do, and that would still put you way ahead of your peers.
Truth-seeking is one of the least controversial values to hold sacred. It's almost a humble brag. I'd be more impressed with your vulnerability display if you divulged some situation where you've been tempted to sacrifice truth-seeking at the altar of some other more controversial value, such as self-aggrandizement. Like maybe someone produced a really clever argument against some concept you spent many years developing, like prediction markets or grabby aliens or whatever, and you found yourself incapable of reconciling the discrepancy. But instead of signal-boosting that someone found a hole in your argument (in the name of truth-seeking!!), you suppress it or rationalize around it, or even try to keep it secret.
I agree it is important to develop better institutions for this case, but I haven't come up with anything, so don't have anything concrete to suggest.
> truth-seeking among intellectuals on important topics
Suppose, hypothetically, that you're wrong about something important. What reasonable series of actions could someone take to correct your error?
Elaborating: Suppose a member of the public knows your error and would like to tell you. Further suppose that he cannot tell you in a paragraph or two. Your initial reaction will be that the idea does not sound promising. That's because it's complicated, it's counter-intuitive, it disagrees with multiple ideas you have, and it relies on several pieces of background knowledge you don't have. It's not the kind of easily-understandable, immediately-appealing idea that would go viral. Also, the critic doesn't have the right credentials, social status or social network to get your attention that way.
I understand that you have to protect your time, energy and attention. I understand that the large majority of people who'd like to teach you something are, in fact, wrong. But do you a written policy for how you protect your time and attention without blocking good ideas, which explains to a would-be critic what steps he needs to do to not be incorrectly ignored? Is such a policy publicly exposed to critical scrutiny? Do you have public transparency and accountability for how you handle this stuff? I believe not.
It's also important, for persuasion, that would-be critics who are wrong can get their criticisms addressed. Otherwise they'll keep thinking you're wrong with no way to learn better from you. Again you must protect your time, but there are things you can do. Books, blogs and FAQs help but aren't enough. A discussion forum with an organized community that takes responsibility for answering questions and criticisms would do more. That'd involve proxies who can answer some things in your place, and written escalation policies for when the proxies don't address issues adequately.
I think these methodological issues related to resource-efficient ways error correction can happen are crucial to truth seeking, and that you and many others are not working on them. I have been: https://criticalfallibilism...
"You run out of arguments" every system of thought and behaviour has premises, axioms, assumptions, values or similar that just are. It's the system as a whole that must be judged on how well it works, not each value or assumption.
If you value truth, then identifying that value clearly as a value is an important step. It's just being consistent - not a vulnerability.