Seeking Upstream Meta-Solutions, with a philosophy/sociology/psychology orientation. Background in clinical psychology. Interest in understanding root-root issues and using awareness find leverage in shifting modern zeitgeist.
This is a really cool topic. I wonder why there is tension. I haven't been around long enough to see it in action, but I'm getting a better sense for it as I read similar posts. Do you think there's a key cultural shift that would address the underlying issue? Do you think there's any fear (or some other emotion/rationale) about avoiding this middle ground?
I agree with this concept objectively. As in many things in life, the truth is probably complicated - even if we can simplify it with an analogy. Depth and quality matter as much as quantity.
When you're looking at "downstream" vs "upstream" solutions (immediate consequences vs root issues), the lens of maximization is going to have a different impact. The efficiency of energy spent, the effort and markers identified and measured; all would be different depending on what you are paying attention to. It's difficult, but being able to hold space for diverse and even conflicting opinions (within the mindset of "yes &") is something I see a lot of beuracracies struggle to do. In IFS (a therapy that treats aspects our inner selves as "parts"); finding ways to validate concerns can ultimately lead to better consensus and creative ways of resovling tension - if you apply this concept to an org, arguing internally will maintain tension whereas vaildation may lead to precious refinements/insights that shift the goal slightly.
In short: Layers of mindfulness, openness to conflicting perspectives, and discussion about the positive impact qualities may help embody "good maximization" without becoming too narrow minded or solution jumping.
My two cents (acknowledging I'm just getting acquainted to the community):
TL;DR's seem important, also "calls to action" may help. If those are included, I imagine less barrier to post. In reading the other posts, it looks like there's a karma system that makes things challenging here. I wonder if a living "posting guide" might help celebrate discourse and conversation, rather than get bogged down by criticism?
Main question: Are articles making it clear what kind of response would be celebrated?
I don't know much about EA yet, so this was nice to hear your perspective about where things could improve. I can see both sides of the coin here; that being accessible helps with distribution of information, and how non-serious people aren't going to include the rigor that's required to understand some of these complex issues.
I wonder where the middle ground is? I also wonder what changes would bring the most relief to you. Shift in culture? Shift in sharable material?
This is a really cool topic. I wonder why there is tension. I haven't been around long enough to see it in action, but I'm getting a better sense for it as I read similar posts. Do you think there's a key cultural shift that would address the underlying issue? Do you think there's any fear (or some other emotion/rationale) about avoiding this middle ground?
I agree with this concept objectively. As in many things in life, the truth is probably complicated - even if we can simplify it with an analogy. Depth and quality matter as much as quantity.
When you're looking at "downstream" vs "upstream" solutions (immediate consequences vs root issues), the lens of maximization is going to have a different impact. The efficiency of energy spent, the effort and markers identified and measured; all would be different depending on what you are paying attention to. It's difficult, but being able to hold space for diverse and even conflicting opinions (within the mindset of "yes &") is something I see a lot of beuracracies struggle to do. In IFS (a therapy that treats aspects our inner selves as "parts"); finding ways to validate concerns can ultimately lead to better consensus and creative ways of resovling tension - if you apply this concept to an org, arguing internally will maintain tension whereas vaildation may lead to precious refinements/insights that shift the goal slightly.
In short: Layers of mindfulness, openness to conflicting perspectives, and discussion about the positive impact qualities may help embody "good maximization" without becoming too narrow minded or solution jumping.
My two cents (acknowledging I'm just getting acquainted to the community):
TL;DR's seem important, also "calls to action" may help. If those are included, I imagine less barrier to post. In reading the other posts, it looks like there's a karma system that makes things challenging here. I wonder if a living "posting guide" might help celebrate discourse and conversation, rather than get bogged down by criticism?
Main question: Are articles making it clear what kind of response would be celebrated?
I don't know much about EA yet, so this was nice to hear your perspective about where things could improve. I can see both sides of the coin here; that being accessible helps with distribution of information, and how non-serious people aren't going to include the rigor that's required to understand some of these complex issues.
I wonder where the middle ground is? I also wonder what changes would bring the most relief to you. Shift in culture? Shift in sharable material?
This is great meta-feedback - I'll be sure to include more TL;DRs at the start of my articles too.
I would love to see a summary of the results of this with categories!