What does it even mean to say that that category of exposure is bad if its every conceivable incarnation is net good?
As an analogy, consider paying for stuff with money. (We could think about how it’s actually good that the other person gets money, because that way they can invest it more to make more stuff efficiently, which I agree with, but I’d bid to put that aside for the analogy.) From your selfish perspective, is that good or bad or what? Generally, you’d aim, and probably usually succeed, at paying for stuff when it’s net good. But that’s not how you do accounting, you still want to account for the part where you give up some money as a bad aspect of the total transaction.
I explained earlier why I’m very worried about ways of thinking that tend toward underexposure and not so worried about ways that tend toward overexposure.
I would want to point out that constructing complicated boundaries is difficult but is a worthwile task that allows you to avoid blunt force action in favor of more precise action. In this case, I’d be concerned about the fact that there’s this under/over-exposure tradeoff. To me, that says that we’re not identifying well the cases where the exposure is worthwhile or not.
My extremely strong suspicion is that a person whose thought process goes like this with any frequency, even if they end up accepting the risk often enough when they think it through, is extremely underexposed to emotional risk and does not know it because unlike overexposure, underexposure is self-reinforcing
Yeah, I think you’re wrong about this regarding many people, including me. I observe in myself and in other people that when we slow down and talk/think about why something is harm-exposing, they often figure out how to not be so harm-exposing while still being able to explore things more openly.
As an analogy, consider paying for stuff with money. (We could think about how it’s actually good that the other person gets money, because that way they can invest it more to make more stuff efficiently, which I agree with, but I’d bid to put that aside for the analogy.) From your selfish perspective, is that good or bad or what? Generally, you’d aim, and probably usually succeed, at paying for stuff when it’s net good. But that’s not how you do accounting, you still want to account for the part where you give up some money as a bad aspect of the total transaction.
I would want to point out that constructing complicated boundaries is difficult but is a worthwile task that allows you to avoid blunt force action in favor of more precise action. In this case, I’d be concerned about the fact that there’s this under/over-exposure tradeoff. To me, that says that we’re not identifying well the cases where the exposure is worthwhile or not.
Yeah, I think you’re wrong about this regarding many people, including me. I observe in myself and in other people that when we slow down and talk/think about why something is harm-exposing, they often figure out how to not be so harm-exposing while still being able to explore things more openly.