For the U.S. we could craft messages for both the Red and Blue tribes.
To convince Blues let’s say that opposing eradicating the biting mosquitoes is racist since mosquitoes kill so many Africans, and that Reds don’t want us to kill mosquitoes because they fear African population growth.
To convince Reds say that mighty American technology can cheaply crush the disgusting disease-carrying bloodsuckers, and Blues oppose killing mosquitoes because they love the environment more than people.
I think appealing to personal self interest of people hating to be stuck by mosquitos is more likely to mobilize people instead of trying to go after Red/Blue tribes.
In a perfect world. But tribalism is a tough nut to crack. sometimes people will oppose interventions for serious problems largely because the other tribe is in favour.
Which, although I initially pooh poohed it, could be a transformative idea.
Are there any teams and competitions in effective altruism? Rankings? Keeping track of who is winning? Rivalries?
I’ve been playing Ingress for a while, and all the effort both sides are putting in for nothing nags at me. Time spent on sports, or politics, nags at me.
If we harnessed that “team spirit” toward actually producing value in the world, that would make a very different world.
Altruism Sport. Go team go. Rah Rah Rah.
And back to James, sure, you’d probably want to appeal to the Red team, appeal to the Blue team, and also appeal to the antidivisive We as well. Play all the messages to all the markets.
To convince Blues let’s say that opposing eradicating the biting mosquitoes is racist since mosquitoes kill so many Africans, and that Reds don’t want us to kill mosquitoes because they fear African population growth.
In practice Blues seem remarkably uninterested in the actual welfare of Blacks (or women) when in interferes with their other narratives. Thus I don’t expect this to become an issue that gets Blue support for the same reason Rotherham didn’t.
For the U.S. we could craft messages for both the Red and Blue tribes.
To convince Blues let’s say that opposing eradicating the biting mosquitoes is racist since mosquitoes kill so many Africans, and that Reds don’t want us to kill mosquitoes because they fear African population growth.
To convince Reds say that mighty American technology can cheaply crush the disgusting disease-carrying bloodsuckers, and Blues oppose killing mosquitoes because they love the environment more than people.
I think appealing to personal self interest of people hating to be stuck by mosquitos is more likely to mobilize people instead of trying to go after Red/Blue tribes.
Or we could see that sometimes we actually have shared interests, and act on them.
In a perfect world. But tribalism is a tough nut to crack. sometimes people will oppose interventions for serious problems largely because the other tribe is in favour.
James argues that we should specifically play into tribalism.
Which, although I initially pooh poohed it, could be a transformative idea.
Are there any teams and competitions in effective altruism? Rankings? Keeping track of who is winning? Rivalries?
I’ve been playing Ingress for a while, and all the effort both sides are putting in for nothing nags at me. Time spent on sports, or politics, nags at me.
If we harnessed that “team spirit” toward actually producing value in the world, that would make a very different world.
Altruism Sport. Go team go. Rah Rah Rah.
And back to James, sure, you’d probably want to appeal to the Red team, appeal to the Blue team, and also appeal to the antidivisive We as well. Play all the messages to all the markets.
If it is transformative, Scott Alexander deserves the credit.
Providing we actually do work on the right projects and don’t pick the wrong battles.
In practice Blues seem remarkably uninterested in the actual welfare of Blacks (or women) when in interferes with their other narratives. Thus I don’t expect this to become an issue that gets Blue support for the same reason Rotherham didn’t.