I am not at all sure that these lessons are transferable to cryo or AI risk advocacy.
I felt that the main transferable lesson was the broader point about a change in habits requiring a change in the overall culture. Sometimes you can do it with friendly door-to-door education, but sometimes it requires a broader shift, as with the adoption of antisepsis. That seems like rough evidence of MIRI’s and CFAR’s efforts at building cultures of thinking about these things in a new manner being a strategy worth pursuing. This article caused me to assign a considerably greater probability to the possibility of CFAR having a major effect than I’d done before.
Also some obvious parallels in that e.g. taking steps to increase AI safety doesn’t really provide emotional benefits to current AI researchers, nor does the thought of cryonics provide emotional benefits to most of the people considering signing up, though those points might be relatively well-understood here already.
A study conducted in 2007[27] sought to determine why people believe they share emotional episodes. According to self reports by participants, there are several main reasons why people initiate social sharing behaviors (in no particular order):
Rehearse—to remember or re-experience the event
Vent—to express or alleviate pent-up emotions, to attempt catharsis
Obtain help, support, and comfort—to receive consolation and sympathy
Legitimization—to validate one’s emotions of the event and have them approved
Clarification and meaning—to clarify certain aspects of the event that were not well understood, to find meaning in the happenings of the event
Advice—to seek guidance and find solutions to problems created by the event
Bonding—to become closer to others and reduce feelings of loneliness
Empathy—to emotionally arouse or touch the listener
Draw attention—to receive attention from others, possibly to impress others
Entertain—to engage others and facilitate social interactions[4]
I think the friendly person-to-person part could apply to cryo.
There’s at least one more thing to add to your summary. Test, test, test. Admittedly, this wasn’t part of the history of every idea that’s spread, but it helped a lot with the rehydration project.
Friendly person to person part also applies to accepting Jesus as your lord and saviour.
I don’t see an important societal level benefit from promoting cryo. The money spent on it are best used elsewhere. Especially as the younger lives that you save now are likely to live till indefinite life extension, under assumptions common among cryonics proponents.
And in any case, those who sign up already try to convince as many others as they can, to keep their cryo provider afloat or fund experiments.
Missing summary:
Best practices spread better when there is a buy-in from the practitioners. Some conditions to get it:
the positive effect is immediate (pain relief)
the practitioner benefits emotionally, not just financially (antisepsis: doctors as scientists)
the benefit is explained and demonstrated in a friendly and clear way (door-to-door rehydration education, one-on-one nurse training)
I am not at all sure that these lessons are transferable to cryo or AI risk advocacy.
I felt that the main transferable lesson was the broader point about a change in habits requiring a change in the overall culture. Sometimes you can do it with friendly door-to-door education, but sometimes it requires a broader shift, as with the adoption of antisepsis. That seems like rough evidence of MIRI’s and CFAR’s efforts at building cultures of thinking about these things in a new manner being a strategy worth pursuing. This article caused me to assign a considerably greater probability to the possibility of CFAR having a major effect than I’d done before.
Also some obvious parallels in that e.g. taking steps to increase AI safety doesn’t really provide emotional benefits to current AI researchers, nor does the thought of cryonics provide emotional benefits to most of the people considering signing up, though those points might be relatively well-understood here already.
I would guess that you feel emotionally better if less if your patients die.
A study conducted in 2007[27] sought to determine why people believe they share emotional episodes. According to self reports by participants, there are several main reasons why people initiate social sharing behaviors (in no particular order):
I think the friendly person-to-person part could apply to cryo.
There’s at least one more thing to add to your summary. Test, test, test. Admittedly, this wasn’t part of the history of every idea that’s spread, but it helped a lot with the rehydration project.
Friendly person to person part also applies to accepting Jesus as your lord and saviour.
I don’t see an important societal level benefit from promoting cryo. The money spent on it are best used elsewhere. Especially as the younger lives that you save now are likely to live till indefinite life extension, under assumptions common among cryonics proponents.
And in any case, those who sign up already try to convince as many others as they can, to keep their cryo provider afloat or fund experiments.