I don’t know about a politics sequence. The idea of change which is held by most people here is through either an AI, efficient charity, or behind-the-scenes economy fixing. Before going much further it may be best to explain why politics is better than at least one of these things.
The way I see it, all of these—especially the last point, which sounds unfamiliar, do you have a link? - are potentially political activities. Raising funds for AI or some effective charity is a political action, as I’ve defined it. The model I’m building in this sequence doesn’t necessarily say that it’s best to engage in normal political campaigns or even to vote. It is a framework to create one’s own ideology. And as such it doesn’t prescribe any course of action, but what you put into it will.
I have no link, but there’s a significant number of posts about economic science for a community of non business persons. I guess behind-the-scenes economy fixing is differentiated from efficient charity by its scale, rather than anything fundamental.
So you mean that this politics sequence is intended to augment the quest for AI, efficient charity and/or economy fixing?
Hm, so economy fixing is like trying to make the markets function better? Such as when Robert Shiller created a futures market for house loans, which helped to show that people invested too much in housing?
No, that was not part of my intentions when I thought of this. But I’d guess that they would be or it won’t be used by anyone.
The goal of this sequence is to create a model with enables one to think more rationally regarding political questions. Or, maybe, societal questions (since I maybe am using the word politics too broadly for most here). The intention was to create a better tool of thought.
Yes, but I owe you an apology for bringing economics up. I fell for some cognitive bias or other when remembering the number of ecnomics posts- Stuart Armstrong’s is the only one in recent months where economics was the end and not a mean to some other discussion.
Basically, everyone on this board has made a pre-committment to not expend energy on politics. You’ll definitely need a sequence post on the benefits of political thought as a general concept, before any posts about how to think politics properly. Why before how.
I believe I should be able both to show how to think on politics and then use that structure to show that some political action is preferable to none—and by my definition work on EA and AI are, for those methods I mention above, political question.
I do have a short answer to the question of why to engage in politics. But it will be expanded in time.
The goal of this sequence is to create a model with enables one to think more rationally regarding political questions. Or, maybe, societal questions (since I maybe am using the word politics too broadly for most here). The intention was to create a better tool of thought.
I don’t think it succeeds.
Rationally regarding political questions is about seeing shades of gray.
You basically argue for a idealistic liberatian view of politics which is hold in history mainly by people who don’t win any political conflicts.
I don’t think that the idealistic-pragmatist divide is that great, but if I should place myself in either camp, then it’s the latter. From my perspective this model would not, if followed through, suggest to do anything that will not have a positive impact (from one’s own perspective).
I don’t think that the idealistic-pragmatist divide is that great, but if I should place myself in either camp, then it’s the latter.
Pragmatists don’t talk about fisherman who don’t want bridges to be build but about realpolitik.
Your model is build upon idealistic foundations instead of observations of how politics works in the real world.
Politics doesn’t really have to be “better” than the other popular solutions, it just needs to provide better marginal utility to some people, under some circumstances.
I don’t know about a politics sequence. The idea of change which is held by most people here is through either an AI, efficient charity, or behind-the-scenes economy fixing. Before going much further it may be best to explain why politics is better than at least one of these things.
The way I see it, all of these—especially the last point, which sounds unfamiliar, do you have a link? - are potentially political activities. Raising funds for AI or some effective charity is a political action, as I’ve defined it. The model I’m building in this sequence doesn’t necessarily say that it’s best to engage in normal political campaigns or even to vote. It is a framework to create one’s own ideology. And as such it doesn’t prescribe any course of action, but what you put into it will.
I have no link, but there’s a significant number of posts about economic science for a community of non business persons. I guess behind-the-scenes economy fixing is differentiated from efficient charity by its scale, rather than anything fundamental.
So you mean that this politics sequence is intended to augment the quest for AI, efficient charity and/or economy fixing?
Hm, so economy fixing is like trying to make the markets function better? Such as when Robert Shiller created a futures market for house loans, which helped to show that people invested too much in housing?
No, that was not part of my intentions when I thought of this. But I’d guess that they would be or it won’t be used by anyone.
The goal of this sequence is to create a model with enables one to think more rationally regarding political questions. Or, maybe, societal questions (since I maybe am using the word politics too broadly for most here). The intention was to create a better tool of thought.
Yes, but I owe you an apology for bringing economics up. I fell for some cognitive bias or other when remembering the number of ecnomics posts- Stuart Armstrong’s is the only one in recent months where economics was the end and not a mean to some other discussion.
Basically, everyone on this board has made a pre-committment to not expend energy on politics. You’ll definitely need a sequence post on the benefits of political thought as a general concept, before any posts about how to think politics properly. Why before how.
I believe I should be able both to show how to think on politics and then use that structure to show that some political action is preferable to none—and by my definition work on EA and AI are, for those methods I mention above, political question.
I do have a short answer to the question of why to engage in politics. But it will be expanded in time.
I don’t think it succeeds. Rationally regarding political questions is about seeing shades of gray.
You basically argue for a idealistic liberatian view of politics which is hold in history mainly by people who don’t win any political conflicts.
I don’t think that the idealistic-pragmatist divide is that great, but if I should place myself in either camp, then it’s the latter. From my perspective this model would not, if followed through, suggest to do anything that will not have a positive impact (from one’s own perspective).
Pragmatists don’t talk about fisherman who don’t want bridges to be build but about realpolitik. Your model is build upon idealistic foundations instead of observations of how politics works in the real world.
Politics doesn’t really have to be “better” than the other popular solutions, it just needs to provide better marginal utility to some people, under some circumstances.
Is marginal utility one term or two?
I don’t understand the question.
I didn’t know if the marginal was due to marginal utility being technical.