It means that if a problem isn’t actually going to get solved by someone else, then it’s my job to make sure it gets solved, no matter who’s job it is on paper.
There is a countless number of problems in the world that are not actually going to get solved, by anyone. This seems to imply that it’s my job to make sure they all get solved. This seems absurd and can’t be what it means, but what is the actual meaning of heroic responsibility then?
For example, does it mean that I should pick the problem to work on that has the highest EV per unit of my time, or pick the problem that I have the biggest comparative advantage in, or something like that? But then how does “heroic responsibility” differ from standard EA advice and what is “heroic” about it? (Or maybe it was more heroic and novel, at a time when there was no standard EA advice?) Anyway I’m pretty confused.
I think the difference is Heroic Responsibility doesn’t mean taking every problem on your shoulders, it means taking every potential part of the problems you have taken on your shoulders.
A business manager takes Heroic Responsibility for their business, but not the whole world. You can decide to take Heroic Responsibility for the whole world, and that looks a lot like the EA playbook in many ways. At least in my interpretation Heroic Responsibility often involves crossing departments to make sure your problem gets solved, but it doesn’t automatically make everyone else’s problems your problems.
The version of this I would say is “Heroic responsibility is not a thing that’s handed to you. It’s a thing you decide on.”
Every problem in the world exists. You could choose to take heroic responsbility for any of them, or, for an EA style “systematically go down the list of things that seem like they need doing and do them in order or priority.” But, you don’t have to! (If you choose not to take heroic responsbility for things, well, they might not get done, but that doesn’t imply anything else like ‘you failed in a responsibility’)
What are the disagreement votes for[1], given that my comment is made of questions and a statement of confusion? What are the voters disagreeing about?
(I’ve seen this in the past as well, disagreement votes on my questioning comments, so figure I’d finally ask what people have in mind when’re voting like this.)
Didn’t disagree vote myself, but I think there’s a linguistic pattern of ‘just asking questions’ that is used to signal disagreement while also evading interrogation yourself. At first glance, your comment may be reading that way to others, who then hastily smash the disagree button to signal disagreement with the position they think you’re implying (even though you were really genuinely just asking questions).
I see this happen a lot, where folks mismodel someone’s epistemic state or tacking when, really, the person is just confused and trying to explicate the conditions of their confusion. In the broader world, claiming to be confused about something is a common tactic for trying to covertly convince someone of your position.
There is a countless number of problems in the world that are not actually going to get solved, by anyone. This seems to imply that it’s my job to make sure they all get solved. This seems absurd and can’t be what it means, but what is the actual meaning of heroic responsibility then?
For example, does it mean that I should pick the problem to work on that has the highest EV per unit of my time, or pick the problem that I have the biggest comparative advantage in, or something like that? But then how does “heroic responsibility” differ from standard EA advice and what is “heroic” about it? (Or maybe it was more heroic and novel, at a time when there was no standard EA advice?) Anyway I’m pretty confused.
I think the difference is Heroic Responsibility doesn’t mean taking every problem on your shoulders, it means taking every potential part of the problems you have taken on your shoulders.
A business manager takes Heroic Responsibility for their business, but not the whole world. You can decide to take Heroic Responsibility for the whole world, and that looks a lot like the EA playbook in many ways. At least in my interpretation Heroic Responsibility often involves crossing departments to make sure your problem gets solved, but it doesn’t automatically make everyone else’s problems your problems.
The version of this I would say is “Heroic responsibility is not a thing that’s handed to you. It’s a thing you decide on.”
Every problem in the world exists. You could choose to take heroic responsbility for any of them, or, for an EA style “systematically go down the list of things that seem like they need doing and do them in order or priority.” But, you don’t have to! (If you choose not to take heroic responsbility for things, well, they might not get done, but that doesn’t imply anything else like ‘you failed in a responsibility’)
What are the disagreement votes for[1], given that my comment is made of questions and a statement of confusion? What are the voters disagreeing about?
(I’ve seen this in the past as well, disagreement votes on my questioning comments, so figure I’d finally ask what people have in mind when’re voting like this.)
2 votes totally −3 agreement, at the time of this writing
Didn’t disagree vote myself, but I think there’s a linguistic pattern of ‘just asking questions’ that is used to signal disagreement while also evading interrogation yourself. At first glance, your comment may be reading that way to others, who then hastily smash the disagree button to signal disagreement with the position they think you’re implying (even though you were really genuinely just asking questions).
I see this happen a lot, where folks mismodel someone’s epistemic state or tacking when, really, the person is just confused and trying to explicate the conditions of their confusion. In the broader world, claiming to be confused about something is a common tactic for trying to covertly convince someone of your position.
I’m guessing they are something like “I disagree that this is the right question to be asking.”
They have the ability to contribute. It is no legible responsibility of theirs, there is no expectation they’ll intervene.
″...This seems to imply it’s my job they all get solved. This seems absurd.”
Then it probably isn’t your job. It is ‘heroic’ responsibility because it is legible to only to them.
Only probably, though. If it were easy to feel spontaneous responsibility, we wouldn’t feel the bystander effect.
For posterity: This comment was made in a context that did not discuss or consider extremist violence.