= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DavidAgain comments on Less Wrong NYC: Case Study of a Successful Rationalist Chapter - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (166)
I don't like the designation of hero, because it implies the rest of the participants are helpless and in need of saving. And if we tell that to people, they might just start believing it--or continue believing it. I think we should stick with organizer.
This is not to detract from the accomplishments of these original organizers. Kudos to them, and to the original post, which is both informative and motivational.
(And by the way, I'm sorry to pick on you lukeprog. You were just extending the metaphor established in the OP. But that continuation was what made me notice. )
I also found it confusing, because the community has 'heroes' in the sense of much-talked-about role models who are generally admired. One of the odd things about the London meetup I went to was that there were several names being spoken of in mildly reverent tones. I'm not criticising this: it has ups as well as downs. But it's that, not organisers, thatI think of when you say 'heroes'.
What sort of community wouldn't you expect that of? If we were some sort of martial arts interest group, or an environmentalist group, or pretty much any kind of common interest meetup, wouldn't you expect there to be names that were overall spoken of approvingly?
As I said, it's not a criticism. I guess the difference is that for some interest groups the people who are looked up to are clearly separate from the community itself. And it's not a question of approving of them in terms of 'don't they do good work', which you might expect in enviromentalists. It's closer to martial arts in that it's looking up to mentor-like figures who are seen as further down the path of rationality. Though the related qualities of intelligence and productivity get attention too.
What do you call someone who generates positive externalities?
Depends on the context: a chef, a doctor, an artist a lover, an author...
To be fair, some chefs, doctors, artists and authors are excellent at what they do, some are mediocre, and some may have a downright negative impact.
That's a very positive implied attitude to lovers!
A compromise might be to call people by a descriptive term, such as the ones DavidAgain suggests, describe their accomplishments and effect on the external world in detail (much as you have done in your original post), and leave it up to the reader to decide on the magnitude of their impact, and their virtue.
The only downside to this approach is that it wouldn't make for such "good writing" to some.
I guess what I'm really suggesting here is to tone down the rhetoric. I understand that some people might be impelled into action by it, but I think it's approaching Dark Arts territory.