lionhearted

For instance, a talk I attended at EAGx Virtual covered this - https://whatworkswellbeing.org/about-wellbeing/how-to-measur... - I haven't been able to dive deeply into the methodology, but it looks incredibly thoughtful and with many practical applications. I'm, personally, really happy people are doing work like that.

Then, simultaneously there are people in the EA/Longtermist space that are working on more speculative potential problems — pandemic preparedness, reducing the risk of nuclear war, and yes AI Safety. To the latter point, empirically a lot of people in AI Safety seem more worried about very practical can-definitely-be-anticipated risks of things like, e.g., USA-China rivalry and what types of regulations, markets, and general consensus might prevent that from going badly. Obviously highly speculative futuristic ideas are sexier and get more attention than "boring routine stuff" but international conventions against, for instance, Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs) seems like a really prudent thing to at least explore and see if an international consensus could be built around similar to the Geneva or Hague conventions.

As for "EA-think" I don't agree with Aaronson's assessment. I'm n=1, but there's not a single monolithic viewpoint.

Some really exceptional work is being done by some very thoughtful people there. Undoubtedly some bad or sloppy work is being done, as is true in just about any domain. But on balance I've found the people there to be quite thoughtful and doing some really valuable things for the world with a lot of sincerity and rigor.

http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/an142304.pdf

Rosenthal takes the very terse, poetic, and metaphorical lines of Laozi and turns them into extended prose while keeping a lot of the aesthetics. Like so:

> THE TAO AND ITS NAME

> 1. Naming things enables us to differentiate between them, but names are words, and words easily give rise to confusion. They do not replace the thing or direct experience of the thing which they name, but only represent or describe it.

(And then it goes deeper into explaining on that point.)

At least in Rosenthal's case, his take is quite different than the professors who wrote this article:

> KNOWLEDGE OF 'THE TAO', AND EXPERIENCE OF THE TAO.

> There is a way in which we may conduct our lives without regrets, and in such a manner as assists in developing and realizing our individual potential, without harming others, or inhibiting the realization of their potential, and which is beneficial to a healthy society.

> Such a way of life may of course be conducted without a name, and without description, but in order that others may know of it, and so as to distinguish it from other ways in which life may be conducted, we give it a name, and use words to describe it.

And then, critically —

> 2. LETTING GO OF OPPOSITES.

> It is the nature of the ordinary person, the person who is not yet at one with the Tao, to compare the manifestations of the natural qualities possessed by things. Such a person tries to learn of such qualities by distinguishing between their manifestations, and so learns only of their comparative manifestations.

> So it is that the ordinary person might consider one thing beautiful when compared with another which he considers to be ugly; one thing skillfully made compared with another which he considers badly made. He knows of what he has as a result of knowing what he does not have, and of that which he considers easy through that which he considers difficult. He considers one thing long by comparing it with another thing which he considers short; one thing high and another low. He knows of noise through silence and of silence through noise, and learns of that which leads through that which follows.

> When such comparisons are made by a sage, that is a person who is in harmony with the Tao, that person is aware of making a judgement, and that judgements are relative to the person who makes them, and to the situation in which they are made, as much as they are relative to that which is judged.

The interaction and fusion of Taoist and various other Chinese thought with Buddhism, attributed typically to Boddhidharma traveling from India to China, became the foundation of Chan Buddhism in China and later Zen Buddhism in Japan.

I reckon most scholars and practitioners from the tradition wouldn't accept the useful/useless distinction as correct or as "Follow[ing] the Daoist way" - like, some nice ideas in the article, but both a false dichotomy and unfortunate dualism there.

https://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-What-...

The basic idea is that in any difficult conversation, there's actually three sub-conversations happening —

(1) What happened?

(2) How do we feel about it?

(3) What are we going to do about it?

A lot of times people get into cross-talk or can't get on the same page because they mix up what sub-conversation they're happening. This can happen when one person gets right into proposing solutions (#3) while another person is still trying to work out why things went the way they did (#1). Likewise, sometimes a conversation around "we really screwed this up" is meant to be a neutral "what happened" conversation (#1) but is taken as a negative or put-down (#2).

Useful book. Very readable and informative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

Highly highly recommended.

Edit: Soviet pharmacology also very interesting — and even more surprising it hasn't been studied and imported since, like, humans are humans and it works. Probably an unfortunate secondary effect of how trials/licensing/patenting work. Not a bad starting point: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-de...

Edit — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_(Xenophon) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1170

https://norvig.com/experiment-design.html