So it’s not only strategic ignorance, but selective ignorance too. By which I mean to say it only applies highly selectively.
If you have enough knowledge about the situation to know it’s going to be 6⁄1 and 5⁄5, or 5⁄1 and 6⁄5, then that’s a pretty clear distinction. You have quite a bit of knowledge, enough to narrow it to only two situations.
But as you raised, it could be 6⁄1 & 5⁄5, or 6⁄1 & 5/1000 or 6/(.0001% increase of global existential risk) & 5/(.0001% increase of the singularity within your lifetime).
The implications of your point being, if you don’t know what’s at stake, it’s better to learn what’s at stake.
So it’s not only strategic ignorance, but selective ignorance too. By which I mean to say it only applies highly selectively.
If you have enough knowledge about the situation to know it’s going to be 6⁄1 and 5⁄5, or 5⁄1 and 6⁄5, then that’s a pretty clear distinction. You have quite a bit of knowledge, enough to narrow it to only two situations.
But as you raised, it could be 6⁄1 & 5⁄5, or 6⁄1 & 5/1000 or 6/(.0001% increase of global existential risk) & 5/(.0001% increase of the singularity within your lifetime).
The implications of your point being, if you don’t know what’s at stake, it’s better to learn what’s at stake.
Yeah, pretty much.