I’m not sure if I understand this well enough to know if it’s the thing I’m trying to do (and/or the thing I’m doing, regardless of my intent)
I will say that I’m trying to do something pretty nuanced, but that I think building motivation and interest in a thing requires laying out some strong, salient examples. (For reference, there is a sense in which I think it was ridiculous and epistemically unsound for Eliezer to include fictional stories about a Secret Bayesian Order of Monks among his posts about decision theory and AI, but those stories did in fact play an important role in causing a community to exist and a lot of good things to happen)
In the end, my goal here is to have trust/communication/emotional skills feel sufficiently exciting that people actually take them seriously. Not have them become the be-all-end-all of a new tribal identity.
In the end, my goal here is to have trust/communication/emotional skills feel sufficiently exciting that people actually take them seriously. Not have them become the be-all-end-all of a new tribal identity.
Your post doesn’t conjure up an image of a person who has trust/communication/emotional skills.
You don’t get an inspiring myth by doing literary criticism. When you want to research how a good model of a person who has those skills looks like neither EY writing nor Rowlings work provide a good foundation.
I’m not sure if I understand this well enough to know if it’s the thing I’m trying to do (and/or the thing I’m doing, regardless of my intent)
I will say that I’m trying to do something pretty nuanced, but that I think building motivation and interest in a thing requires laying out some strong, salient examples. (For reference, there is a sense in which I think it was ridiculous and epistemically unsound for Eliezer to include fictional stories about a Secret Bayesian Order of Monks among his posts about decision theory and AI, but those stories did in fact play an important role in causing a community to exist and a lot of good things to happen)
In the end, my goal here is to have trust/communication/emotional skills feel sufficiently exciting that people actually take them seriously. Not have them become the be-all-end-all of a new tribal identity.
Your post doesn’t conjure up an image of a person who has trust/communication/emotional skills.
You don’t get an inspiring myth by doing literary criticism. When you want to research how a good model of a person who has those skills looks like neither EY writing nor Rowlings work provide a good foundation.