You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

John_Maxwell_IV comments on Open Thread, June 2-15, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: TimS 02 June 2013 02:22AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (433)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (433)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 08 June 2013 06:36:36AM *  4 points [-]

So on the topic of effective altruism, I've been thinking about the benefits of a "can't beat 'em? join 'em" type strategy for improving the world. Examples:

  • Wish South Africa would stop apartheid? Don't protest it, there will be lots of people doing that. Instead, try to gain power within the South African government and become F. W. de Klerk. (Arguably that role is more noble anyway, since you'd be relinquishing power instead of trying to gain power for yourself and people like you.)
  • Want to make China a democracy? Join the communist party and try to be the next Gorbachev.
  • Think XYZ Corp pollutes too much? Join them as an industrial engineer and work on improving their equipment.
  • Want to make the government more efficient? Join the most wasteful government branch you can find, be the plain-spoken, tight-wadded, intelligent, responsive government employee you wish all government employees were, and try to advance to management positions that let you cut the fat off your government branch.
  • Wish academic researchers would stop doing dangerous research that could lead to AGI or brain emulations? Go to grad school, research those topics, gain some acclaim, and then start preaching to your colleagues about potential dangers.
  • Think one of your country's political parties is completely nuts? Fake your way to a position of power within the party, then make a point of always being the most reasonable person in the room.

Thoughts?

Comment author: drethelin 09 June 2013 06:18:38PM 3 points [-]

I'll say what I said on facebook: The most effective paths historically for the bettering of the human condition are technology and trade. The net effect of the republican party on american well-being, however crazy they are, is way smaller than cheap cellphones or widespread computers or good public transportation. You can spend 20 years getting to a position of power as a republican or you can spend 20 years inventing energy storage systems or cheap and accessible travel or healthy but palatable alternatives to snack foods that are more achievable and have the positive benefit of providing you with experience and connections that aren't based 100 percent on lies.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 09 June 2013 08:32:01PM 2 points [-]

Depends on your comparative advantage. For many people its easier to become a moderately successful politician than meaningfully change the progress of world technological development.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 13 June 2013 02:01:36AM 2 points [-]

We should ask ourselves, "How much of my impression of what sorts of interventions are effective comes from fact, and how much from the self-promotion of people who would like to solicit my assistance or deter my interference?"

Comment author: ChristianKl 13 June 2013 11:46:14AM 0 points [-]

When it comes to creating public transportation look at the case of the Uber amendment in DC. If you have bad people in political control they won't allow you to set up your cheap and accessible public transportation.

Comment author: TimS 08 June 2013 01:14:45PM *  3 points [-]

In practice, desire to implement reform-from-within is a strong negative to promotion to positions that could implement the change. If the organization thought your issue was a problem, they probably would address it without your intervention. Since they don't, that means they don't agree that your issue is a problem.

One could adopt a false persona for years to get the promotions to powerful positions. But you still might not get the promotion. And do you want to be a faithful cog in implementing bad policy in the meantime?

And even if you did, you still might not be in position to make the change you want. With the benefit of hindsight, we know Gorbachev could and did make major reforms. But could he have predicted that at the beginning of his career, even if he wanted to?

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 11 June 2013 06:01:53AM 2 points [-]

Also, if you adopt a false persona over a sufficiently long time, there's a risk of that becoming your real persona.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 17 June 2013 07:48:30AM *  0 points [-]

Spies do it all the time, right? Maybe this should be called the "infiltration strategy" or something. Sounds sexier.

Although spies do have handlers whose entire career consists of guiding them in their missions, and being a spy is what they are getting paid to do. That seems like a decent amount of social pressure not to defect. I wonder what defection rates for spies are like? What ways are spies selected for low defection probability aside from being citizens of their home country? I've heard that the NSA doesn't like to hire people who have smoked marijuana.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit