You made a generalisation about all people who say they want to save the world. When you say your comment was all about you, that’s not true, because that was a description of other people, including me. And I have read a fair amount on here by people who state that as one of their goals, and I’ve never thought they were very intolerant of other people because of this—in fact, I remember EY once writing about how he holds other people to a very different standard than himself.
So generalising negatively about me and lots of other people who have formed a goal of trying to do a lot of good in this world, didn’t feel justified, and thus a little mean. If you didn’t mean that to come across, that’s cool.
Neither it is about other people on LW who said they are “trying to do a lot of good in this world”. The point is, saving the world isn’t something that LW invented or first started practicing. People have been trying to save the world, that is, do a lot of good in the world, for a really long time and in many, many different ways. The real consequences of that… vary.
People who were burning witches were trying to save the world from Satan’s influence. The communists were trying to save the world from the rapacious maw of capitalism. Anti-gay protesters were trying to save the world from moral decay.
To make things explicit, the problems are twofold. First, “saving the world” can and does mean very different things to different people. Second, for a goal as vital and compelling as saving the world, no sacrifice is too great.
I see you didn’t mean what it appeared you meant. Nonetheless, your statements seems… To be unnecessary.
The people on this forum were thinking about trying to help as many people as possible, and tend to use the phrase ‘save the world’ to describe this aim. You said “People who try to ‘save the world’ generally become intolerant of those who aren’t”, I said “I don’t, that seems an unfair assessment of the people on this forum” and now you seem to be saying “Oh, I wasn’t talking about you guys.”
You seem to be saying that a lot of other people who use the phrase have done lots of bad things, and therefore… We should be really cautious? Look, trying to maximise good is a fine aim. It’s really good! And if you think someone’s making a mistake, then help them. Heck, people are listing the things they’re doing. I think what everyone’s doing to help the world is good, and giving them positive feedback is a kind and helpful thing to do. This isn’t an echo chamber, it’s trying to help people do good.
If you think that someone is doing a specific thing wrong, then I’m sure they’d be interested in that. This is a site for becoming more in line with reality, and to attain our goals most effectively.
and now you seem to be saying “Oh, I wasn’t talking about you guys.”
I wasn’t talking about you guys personally. But do you believe that you are radically different from all those people who were saving the world before?
Look, trying to maximise good is a fine aim.
That really depends on what do you consider good and what are you willing to sacrifice for that.
I have a feeling there is some typical-mind thinking going on here.
Let’s say Alice appears and says “I want to to do good and save the world!” How are you going to respond? Are you going to encourage Alice, give her positive feedback? You are assuming that Alice is like you and shares the important chunks of your value system. But what if she does not? She is entirely sincere, it’s just that what she thinks of as “good” does not match your ideas.
The world at large does not necessarily share your values. I feel it’s an important point that gets overlooked in the sheltered and cloistered LW world. Some guy’s idea of doing good might be slitting the throats of everyone from the enemy tribe.
That also works in reverse—you say you want to do good, but why should I blindly trust you? Was the Unabomber trying to save the word from the perils of high technology? Would you save the world by bombing an AI lab on the verge of an uncontrolled breakthrough? X-D
You just seem to be talking past us. I think there are a lot of shared values on this forum and furthermore, we’re not celebrating the abstract goal but the particular acts, which means we’re open to discussion on the specifics of what we’re doing. Your talk about the Unabomber is just inappropriate on this thread.
You made a generalisation about all people who say they want to save the world. When you say your comment was all about you, that’s not true, because that was a description of other people, including me. And I have read a fair amount on here by people who state that as one of their goals, and I’ve never thought they were very intolerant of other people because of this—in fact, I remember EY once writing about how he holds other people to a very different standard than himself.
So generalising negatively about me and lots of other people who have formed a goal of trying to do a lot of good in this world, didn’t feel justified, and thus a little mean. If you didn’t mean that to come across, that’s cool.
Benito, it’s not about you.
Neither it is about other people on LW who said they are “trying to do a lot of good in this world”. The point is, saving the world isn’t something that LW invented or first started practicing. People have been trying to save the world, that is, do a lot of good in the world, for a really long time and in many, many different ways. The real consequences of that… vary.
People who were burning witches were trying to save the world from Satan’s influence. The communists were trying to save the world from the rapacious maw of capitalism. Anti-gay protesters were trying to save the world from moral decay.
To make things explicit, the problems are twofold. First, “saving the world” can and does mean very different things to different people. Second, for a goal as vital and compelling as saving the world, no sacrifice is too great.
I see you didn’t mean what it appeared you meant. Nonetheless, your statements seems… To be unnecessary.
The people on this forum were thinking about trying to help as many people as possible, and tend to use the phrase ‘save the world’ to describe this aim. You said “People who try to ‘save the world’ generally become intolerant of those who aren’t”, I said “I don’t, that seems an unfair assessment of the people on this forum” and now you seem to be saying “Oh, I wasn’t talking about you guys.”
You seem to be saying that a lot of other people who use the phrase have done lots of bad things, and therefore… We should be really cautious? Look, trying to maximise good is a fine aim. It’s really good! And if you think someone’s making a mistake, then help them. Heck, people are listing the things they’re doing. I think what everyone’s doing to help the world is good, and giving them positive feedback is a kind and helpful thing to do. This isn’t an echo chamber, it’s trying to help people do good.
If you think that someone is doing a specific thing wrong, then I’m sure they’d be interested in that. This is a site for becoming more in line with reality, and to attain our goals most effectively.
I wasn’t talking about you guys personally. But do you believe that you are radically different from all those people who were saving the world before?
That really depends on what do you consider good and what are you willing to sacrifice for that.
I have a feeling there is some typical-mind thinking going on here.
Let’s say Alice appears and says “I want to to do good and save the world!” How are you going to respond? Are you going to encourage Alice, give her positive feedback? You are assuming that Alice is like you and shares the important chunks of your value system. But what if she does not? She is entirely sincere, it’s just that what she thinks of as “good” does not match your ideas.
The world at large does not necessarily share your values. I feel it’s an important point that gets overlooked in the sheltered and cloistered LW world. Some guy’s idea of doing good might be slitting the throats of everyone from the enemy tribe.
That also works in reverse—you say you want to do good, but why should I blindly trust you? Was the Unabomber trying to save the word from the perils of high technology? Would you save the world by bombing an AI lab on the verge of an uncontrolled breakthrough? X-D
You just seem to be talking past us. I think there are a lot of shared values on this forum and furthermore, we’re not celebrating the abstract goal but the particular acts, which means we’re open to discussion on the specifics of what we’re doing. Your talk about the Unabomber is just inappropriate on this thread.
So? The positive context was pretty clear here. Why be antagonistic about it?
LOL. Echo chambers are full of positive context, aren’t they?
But to answer your question, hubris is not usually a good state of mind.