But you don’t have to bear it alone. It’s not as if one person has to care about everything (nor each single person has to care for all).
Maybe the multiplication (in the example the care for a single bird multiplied by the number of birds) should be followed by a division by the number of persons available to do the caring (possibly adjusted by the expected amount of individual caring).
Intellectually, I know that you are right; I can take on some of the weight while sharing it. Intuitively, though, I have impossibly high standards, for myself and for everything else. For anyone I take responsibility for caring for, I have the strong intuition that if I was really trying, all their problems would be fixed, and that they have persisting problems means that I am inherently inadequate. This is false. I know it is false. Nonetheless, even at the mild scales I do permit myself to care about, it causes me significant emotional distress, and for the sake of my sanity I can’t let it expand to a wider sphere, at least not until I am a) more emotionally durable and b) more demonstrably competent.
Or in short, blur out the details and this is me:
“Yeah,” said the Boy-Who-Lived, “that pretty much nails it. Every time someone cries out in prayer and I can’t answer, I feel guilty about not being God.”
Also, I forget which post (or maybe HPMOR chapter) I got this from, but… it is not useful to assign fault to a part of the system you cannot change, and dividing by the size of the pre-existing altruist (let alone EA) community still leaves things feeling pretty huge.
Having a keen sense for problems that exist, and wanting to demolish them and fix the place from which they spring is not an instinct to quash.
That it causes you emotional distress IS a problem, insofar as you have the ability to perceive and want to fix the problems in absence of the distress. You can test that by finding something you viscerally do not care for and seeing how well your problem-finder works on it; if it’s working fine, the emotional reaction is not helpful, and fixing it will make you feel better, and it won’t come at the cost of smashing your instincts to fix the world.
It’s Harry talking about Blame, chapter 90. (It’s not very spoily, but I don’t know how the spoiler syntax works and failed after trying for a few minutes)
“That’s not how responsibility works, Professor.” Harry’s voice was patient, like he was explaining things to a child who was certain not to understand. He wasn’t looking at her anymore, just staring off at the wall to her right side. “When you do a fault analysis, there’s no point in assigning fault to a part of the system you can’t change afterward, it’s like stepping off a cliff and blaming gravity. Gravity isn’t going to change next time. There’s no point in trying to allocate responsibility to people who aren’t going to alter their actions. Once you look at it from that perspective, you realize that allocating blame never helps anything unless you blame yourself, because you’re the only one whose actions you can change by putting blame there. That’s why Dumbledore has his room full of broken wands. He understands that part, at least.”
I don’t think I understand what you wrote, there AnthonyC; world-scale problems are hard, not immutable.
“A part of the system that you cannot change” is a vague term (and it’s a vague term in the HPMOR quote as well). We think we know what it means, but then you can ask questions like “if there are ten things wrong with the system and you can change only one, but you get to pick which one, which ones count as a part of the system that you can’t change?”
Besides, I would say that the idea is just wrong. It is useful to assign fault to a part of the system that you cannot change, because you need to assign the proper amount of fault as well as just assigning fault, and assigning fault to the part that you can’t change affects the amounts that you assign to the parts that you can change.
The point is that if you actually believe in, say, Christianity (that is, you truly internally believe and not just go to church on Sundays so that neighbors don’t look at you strangely), it’s not your church community which shares your burden. It’s Jesus who lifts this burden off your shoulders.
Ah, that’s probably not what the parent meant then. What he was referring to was analogous to sharing your burden with the church community (or, in context, the effective altruism community).
But you don’t have to bear it alone. It’s not as if one person has to care about everything (nor each single person has to care for all).
Maybe the multiplication (in the example the care for a single bird multiplied by the number of birds) should be followed by a division by the number of persons available to do the caring (possibly adjusted by the expected amount of individual caring).
Intellectually, I know that you are right; I can take on some of the weight while sharing it. Intuitively, though, I have impossibly high standards, for myself and for everything else. For anyone I take responsibility for caring for, I have the strong intuition that if I was really trying, all their problems would be fixed, and that they have persisting problems means that I am inherently inadequate. This is false. I know it is false. Nonetheless, even at the mild scales I do permit myself to care about, it causes me significant emotional distress, and for the sake of my sanity I can’t let it expand to a wider sphere, at least not until I am a) more emotionally durable and b) more demonstrably competent.
Or in short, blur out the details and this is me:
Also, I forget which post (or maybe HPMOR chapter) I got this from, but… it is not useful to assign fault to a part of the system you cannot change, and dividing by the size of the pre-existing altruist (let alone EA) community still leaves things feeling pretty huge.
Having a keen sense for problems that exist, and wanting to demolish them and fix the place from which they spring is not an instinct to quash.
That it causes you emotional distress IS a problem, insofar as you have the ability to perceive and want to fix the problems in absence of the distress. You can test that by finding something you viscerally do not care for and seeing how well your problem-finder works on it; if it’s working fine, the emotional reaction is not helpful, and fixing it will make you feel better, and it won’t come at the cost of smashing your instincts to fix the world.
It’s Harry talking about Blame, chapter 90. (It’s not very spoily, but I don’t know how the spoiler syntax works and failed after trying for a few minutes)
I don’t think I understand what you wrote, there AnthonyC; world-scale problems are hard, not immutable.
“A part of the system that you cannot change” is a vague term (and it’s a vague term in the HPMOR quote as well). We think we know what it means, but then you can ask questions like “if there are ten things wrong with the system and you can change only one, but you get to pick which one, which ones count as a part of the system that you can’t change?”
Besides, I would say that the idea is just wrong. It is useful to assign fault to a part of the system that you cannot change, because you need to assign the proper amount of fault as well as just assigning fault, and assigning fault to the part that you can’t change affects the amounts that you assign to the parts that you can change.
That’s one way for people to become religious.
I’m not sure what point is being made here. Distributing burdens is a part of any group, why is religion exceptional here?
Theory of mind, heh… :-)
The point is that if you actually believe in, say, Christianity (that is, you truly internally believe and not just go to church on Sundays so that neighbors don’t look at you strangely), it’s not your church community which shares your burden. It’s Jesus who lifts this burden off your shoulders.
Ah, that’s probably not what the parent meant then. What he was referring to was analogous to sharing your burden with the church community (or, in context, the effective altruism community).
Yes, of course. I pointed out another way through which you don’t have to bear it alone.
Ah, I understand. Thanks for clearing up my confusion.