I am choosing to interpret this as meaning that you have chosen to be the hero. I’m so glad!
I don’t like the designation of hero, because it implies the rest of the participants are helpless and in need of saving. And if we tell that to people, they might just start believing it—or continue believing it. I think we should stick with organizer.
This is not to detract from the accomplishments of these original organizers. Kudos to them, and to the original post, which is both informative and motivational.
(And by the way, I’m sorry to pick on you lukeprog. You were just extending the metaphor established in the OP. But that continuation was what made me notice. )
Well, someone has to get the ball rolling and, speaking in general, and not about my own particular case, I think calling people who do that hard work by high status titles is a good idea—starting a good community should be thought of as a good and noble thing. OTOH, your point about everyone being potentially useful is true, but as Eliezer talked about in the latest chapter of Methods, the solution is to try to get everyone to be a hero, not to deny the existence of heroes.
Well, someone has to get the ball rolling and, speaking in general, and not about my own particular case, I think calling people who do that hard work by high status titles is a good idea—starting a good community should be thought of as a good and noble thing. OTOH, your point about everyone being potentially useful is true, but as Eliezer talked about in the latest chapter of Methods, the solution is to try to get everyone to be a hero, not to deny the existence of heroes.
But real heroes shouldn’t need the promise of a high status title to get the ball rolling.
Isn’t one of their many attributed qualities selflessness?
They may even be dissuaded by such high-status titles, since one of their many other positive attributes is modesty.
And what exactly is low status about organizer? It is an extremely crucial role.
But real heroes shouldn’t need the promise of a high status title to get the ball rolling.
Real heroes are the sorts of things we expect to find in escapist fantasy, but we live in the real world where promises of status really do get certain people off their duff and acting on important problems.
Real heroes are the sorts of things we expect to find in escapist fantasy, but we live in the real world where promises of status really do get certain people off their duff and acting on important problems.
Okay, but if you strip away all these noble qualities away from a hero, what meaning is there left for the term?
It seems to me that there is some semantic sleight of hand going on here.
On the one hand, you are deflating the term hero of its original meaning. On the other hand, you are still counting on people using it in its original sense, otherwise it wouldn’t be a high-status title.
As a result, you are deceiving both this so-called hero, as well as any of his potential followers.
Don’t you think using an alternate, more descriptive term would avoid this deception and, at the same time, do away with the implied helplessness of the rest of the participants?
Like, say, I don’t know… organizer? :-)
And once again, organizer is not a low status title. Except perhaps when put side by side with the hyperbolic term of hero. But you’ve just dismissed the latter into the realm of escapist fantasy. So why continue using it in the real world?
I also found it confusing, because the community has ‘heroes’ in the sense of much-talked-about role models who are generally admired. One of the odd things about the London meetup I went to was that there were several names being spoken of in mildly reverent tones. I’m not criticising this: it has ups as well as downs. But it’s that, not organisers, thatI think of when you say ‘heroes’.
What sort of community wouldn’t you expect that of? If we were some sort of martial arts interest group, or an environmentalist group, or pretty much any kind of common interest meetup, wouldn’t you expect there to be names that were overall spoken of approvingly?
As I said, it’s not a criticism. I guess the difference is that for some interest groups the people who are looked up to are clearly separate from the community itself. And it’s not a question of approving of them in terms of ‘don’t they do good work’, which you might expect in enviromentalists. It’s closer to martial arts in that it’s looking up to mentor-like figures who are seen as further down the path of rationality. Though the related qualities of intelligence and productivity get attention too.
A compromise might be to call people by a descriptive term, such as the ones DavidAgain suggests, describe their accomplishments and effect on the external world in detail (much as you have done in your original post), and leave it up to the reader to decide on the magnitude of their impact, and their virtue.
The only downside to this approach is that it wouldn’t make for such “good writing” to some.
I guess what I’m really suggesting here is to tone down the rhetoric. I understand that some people might be impelled into action by it, but I think it’s approaching Dark Arts territory.
I don’t like the designation of hero, because it implies the rest of the participants are helpless and in need of saving. And if we tell that to people, they might just start believing it—or continue believing it. I think we should stick with organizer.
This is not to detract from the accomplishments of these original organizers. Kudos to them, and to the original post, which is both informative and motivational.
(And by the way, I’m sorry to pick on you lukeprog. You were just extending the metaphor established in the OP. But that continuation was what made me notice. )
Well, someone has to get the ball rolling and, speaking in general, and not about my own particular case, I think calling people who do that hard work by high status titles is a good idea—starting a good community should be thought of as a good and noble thing. OTOH, your point about everyone being potentially useful is true, but as Eliezer talked about in the latest chapter of Methods, the solution is to try to get everyone to be a hero, not to deny the existence of heroes.
But real heroes shouldn’t need the promise of a high status title to get the ball rolling.
Isn’t one of their many attributed qualities selflessness?
They may even be dissuaded by such high-status titles, since one of their many other positive attributes is modesty.
And what exactly is low status about organizer? It is an extremely crucial role.
Real heroes are the sorts of things we expect to find in escapist fantasy, but we live in the real world where promises of status really do get certain people off their duff and acting on important problems.
Okay, but if you strip away all these noble qualities away from a hero, what meaning is there left for the term?
It seems to me that there is some semantic sleight of hand going on here.
On the one hand, you are deflating the term hero of its original meaning. On the other hand, you are still counting on people using it in its original sense, otherwise it wouldn’t be a high-status title.
As a result, you are deceiving both this so-called hero, as well as any of his potential followers.
Don’t you think using an alternate, more descriptive term would avoid this deception and, at the same time, do away with the implied helplessness of the rest of the participants?
Like, say, I don’t know… organizer? :-)
And once again, organizer is not a low status title. Except perhaps when put side by side with the hyperbolic term of hero. But you’ve just dismissed the latter into the realm of escapist fantasy. So why continue using it in the real world?
I also found it confusing, because the community has ‘heroes’ in the sense of much-talked-about role models who are generally admired. One of the odd things about the London meetup I went to was that there were several names being spoken of in mildly reverent tones. I’m not criticising this: it has ups as well as downs. But it’s that, not organisers, thatI think of when you say ‘heroes’.
What sort of community wouldn’t you expect that of? If we were some sort of martial arts interest group, or an environmentalist group, or pretty much any kind of common interest meetup, wouldn’t you expect there to be names that were overall spoken of approvingly?
As I said, it’s not a criticism. I guess the difference is that for some interest groups the people who are looked up to are clearly separate from the community itself. And it’s not a question of approving of them in terms of ‘don’t they do good work’, which you might expect in enviromentalists. It’s closer to martial arts in that it’s looking up to mentor-like figures who are seen as further down the path of rationality. Though the related qualities of intelligence and productivity get attention too.
What do you call someone who generates positive externalities?
Depends on the context: a chef, a doctor, an artist a lover, an author…
To be fair, some chefs, doctors, artists and authors are excellent at what they do, some are mediocre, and some may have a downright negative impact.
That’s a very positive implied attitude to lovers!
A compromise might be to call people by a descriptive term, such as the ones DavidAgain suggests, describe their accomplishments and effect on the external world in detail (much as you have done in your original post), and leave it up to the reader to decide on the magnitude of their impact, and their virtue.
The only downside to this approach is that it wouldn’t make for such “good writing” to some.
I guess what I’m really suggesting here is to tone down the rhetoric. I understand that some people might be impelled into action by it, but I think it’s approaching Dark Arts territory.