I think there is nothing surprising that small community of nerds writing in spare time has blind spots, but when large professional community has such blind spots that’s surprising.
On your first point: as Sami writes, resolute choice is mentioned in the introductory SEP article on dynamic choice (it even has its own section!), as well as in the SEP article on decision theory. And SEP is the first place you go when you want to learn about philosophical topics and find references.
On your second point: as I wrote in my comment above, (i) academics have produced seemingly similar ideas to e.g. updatelessness (well before they were written up on LW) so it is unclear why academics should engage with less rigorous, unpublished proposals that appear to be similar (in other words, I don’t think the phrase “blind spots” is warranted), and (ii) when academics have commented on or engaged with LW DT ideas, they have to my knowledge largely been critical (e.g. see the post by Wolfgang Schwarz I linked above, as well as the quote from Greaves)[1].
To clarify, by “blind spot” I wasn’t complaining that academia isn’t engaging specifically with posts written up on LW, but more that nobody in academia seems to think that the combination of “updateless+logical” is clearly the most important or promising direction to explore in decision theory.
I think there is nothing surprising that small community of nerds writing in spare time has blind spots, but when large professional community has such blind spots that’s surprising.
On your first point: as Sami writes, resolute choice is mentioned in the introductory SEP article on dynamic choice (it even has its own section!), as well as in the SEP article on decision theory. And SEP is the first place you go when you want to learn about philosophical topics and find references.
On your second point: as I wrote in my comment above, (i) academics have produced seemingly similar ideas to e.g. updatelessness (well before they were written up on LW) so it is unclear why academics should engage with less rigorous, unpublished proposals that appear to be similar (in other words, I don’t think the phrase “blind spots” is warranted), and (ii) when academics have commented on or engaged with LW DT ideas, they have to my knowledge largely been critical (e.g. see the post by Wolfgang Schwarz I linked above, as well as the quote from Greaves)[1].
Cheating Death in Damascus getting published in the Journal of Philosophy is a notable exception though!
To clarify, by “blind spot” I wasn’t complaining that academia isn’t engaging specifically with posts written up on LW, but more that nobody in academia seems to think that the combination of “updateless+logical” is clearly the most important or promising direction to explore in decision theory.